dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Automotive Parts Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 20, 2023 In Re: 27463405 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an advanced degree professional. Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b)(2) . The Petitioner also seeks a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification . See section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, 
when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition . The Director found the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional. But the Director concluded that he did not demonstrate 
that the requested waiver is in the national interest. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we affirm the Director's finding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the "national 
importance" of his proposed U.S. employment. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a pet1t1oner must first demonstrate their 
qualifications for the underlying immigrant visa category, either as an advanced degree professional 
or a noncitizen of exceptional ability in the sciences , arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the 
Act. This category generally requires a prospective U.S . employer to seek a noncitizen's services and 
obtain DOL certification to permanently employ them in the country. Section 212(a)(5)(D) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(D). To avoid the job offer/labor certification requirements , a petitioner must 
demonstrate that waiving these protections for U.S. workers is in the national interest. Section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Neither the Act nor regulations define the term "national interest." But we have established a 
framework for adjudicating requests for national interest waivers . See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). If otherwise qualified as an advanced degree professional or noncitizen 
of exceptional ability, a petitioner may merit a waiver of the job-offer /labor certification requirements 
if they establish that: 
• Their proposed U.S . work has "substantial merit" and "national importance;" 
• They are "well-positioned" to advance their intended endeavor; and 
• On balance , a waiver of the normal job-offer /labor certification requirements would benefit the 
United States . 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has shown his eligibility for the EB-2 classification under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) . 
The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner alleges on appeal that the Director "did not apply the proper 
standard of proof in this case, instead imposing a stricter standard, to [his] detriment." Except where 
a different standard is specified by law, the "preponderance of the evidence " is the standard of proof 
governing immigration benefit requests . See Matter ofChawathe, 2 5 I &NDec. at 3 75; see also Matter 
of Martinez , 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); Matter ofSoo Hoo, 11 l&N Dec. 151, 152 (BIA 
1965). Accordingly, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing national 
interest waiver petitions. See 1 USCIS Policy Manual, E.4(B), https ://www .uscis .gov/policy-manual. 
While the Petitioner asserts on appeal that he has provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate his 
eligibility for a national interest waiver , he does not further explain or identify any specific instance 
in which the Director applied a standard of proof other than the preponderance of evidence in denying 
the petition. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. Although the 
Petitioner 's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable automotive parts and services to his 
customers , he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demon strate that the prospective 
impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar we determined 
that the petitioner 's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because 
they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893 . For the reasons discussed below, we agree 
with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. While we may not 
discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
The Petitioner proposes to pursue his endeavor through work as a general operations manager for his 
own U.S . company [D-], which he and his spouse formed in02021 . The company would import 
auto parts to the United States from Asia and South America and provide "brick and mortar and online 
auto parts retail and services customized by customer service ... " To further illustrate the nature of 
his proposed endeavor, he provided evidence, including a business plan for D-, recommendation 
letters, and documentation regarding the economic benefits of marketing, business management, 
entrepreneurship, immigrant labor and investment. In denying the petition, the Director concluded 
2 
that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the national importance of his particular proposed endeavor. 
The Director explained that the Petitioner's evidence did not show that his proposed work through the 
operation and management of his auto parts business would have broader implications at a level 
indicative of national importance. 
We conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S . workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. The business plan states that D- is to commence operations in 2022 and forecasts 
that D- will generate revenues exceeding $900,000 in its first year of operation, which will steadily 
climb each year to reach revenues of over $2,765,000 by the end of its fifth year of operation. The 
Petitioner estimates his business will create at least 37 jobs within this five-year timeframe. However, 
the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does he 
adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized . In evaluating the 
evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Matter 
ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation . Specifically, he has not shown that his company's future staffing levels would 
provide substantial economic benefits in Virginia and Tennessee (where its stores are to be located), 
or to the United States, generally. While the Petitioner asserts thatD-will hire 37 U.S. employees within 
five years, he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where the will company operates is 
economically depressed , that he would employ a significant population of workers in that area, or that 
his endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit through 
employment levels or business activity. 
For instance, the Petitioner indicates that he will locate his stores in I I VA and_l----
TN, asserting that these locations qualify as Small Business Administration (SBA) Hub Zones . The 
HUBZone program provides preferential contracting consideration to businesses in "historically 
underutilized business zones," including economically depressed areas, qualified disaster areas, and 
areas where military installations were recently closed . See https: //www .sba.gov/federal­
contracting /contracting-assistance-programs /hubzone-program; 13 C.F.R. § 126. However, the record 
does not include evidence indicating that D- is actually located in a HUBZone or will employ workers 
from a HUBZone or other economically depressed area. 
Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy 
resulting from the Petitioner's services would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly , the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the 
fust prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
We also acknowledge the various documents the Petitioner provided regarding the importance of his 
industry and occupation. In his appeal brief, the Petitioner avers that "professionals such as [the 
Petitioner] are an essential component of the U.S. economic market; they accurately represent American 
values .... " He also asserts that his proposed work "will translate into profitable business and commercial 
tendencies, which [ will] in turn contribute to the national economy and the domestic job market. 
3 
However, when determining whether a proposed endeavor would have substantial merit or national 
importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession where the 
Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889-890. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual 
('The term 'endeavor' is more specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details 
not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to 
undertake specifically within that occupation.") 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to his professional statement, among other things, asserting that the 
evidence "extensively describes his credentials, expertise, professional accomplishments, and allows 
concrete projections of the benefits he may offer the United States." While the record contains 
evidence regarding the Petitioner's education, work experience and skills, this documentation is relevant 
to the second Dhanasar prong regarding whether he is well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor. It does not speak to whether his endeavor, in and of itself, would have substantial merit or 
national importance. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. It is unnecessary 
to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the appeal. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. As such, 
we conclude that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4