dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Automotive Repair

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 16, 2024 In Re: 33386110 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a person with expertise in paintless dent repair (PDR) who intends to work as a micro 
restoration specialist in the automotive field, seeks classification under the employment-based, 
second-preference (EB-2) immigrant visa category and a waiver of the category's job-offer 
requirement. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 
1153(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. Id. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner demonstrated his qualifications for the EB-2 category but did not demonstrate he merits a 
national interest waiver. On appeal, the Petitioner resubmitted and referred to the evidence and 
arguments previously presented with the initial application and request for evidence "for further 
analysis, within its details, and reconsideration." 
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 nova appellate review, seeMatterofChristo's , Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that the record does not support a national interest waiver because the Petitioner 
has not established the claimed "national importance" ofhis proposed U.S. venture. We will therefore 
dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for national interest waivers, petitioners must demonstrate their qualifications 
for the EB-2 category, either as members of the professions holding an "advanced degree" or 
noncitizens of "exceptional ability" in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
To protect the jobs of U.S. workers, this immigrant visa category usually requires prospective 
employers to offer noncitizens jobs and to obtain DOL certifications to permanently employ the 
individuals in the country. See section 212(a)(5)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(D). Petitioners 
may avoid the job offer/labor certification requirements by demonstrating that waivers of the U.S.­
worker protections would be in the national interest. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Neither the Act nor regulations define the term "national interest." So, to adjudicate these waiver 
requests, we have established a framework. If otherwise qualified as advanced degree professionals 
or noncitizens of exceptional ability, petitioners may warrant waivers of the job-offer/labor 
certification requirements by demonstrating that: 
• Their proposed U.S. work has "substantial merit" and "national importance;" 
• They are "well positioned" to advance their intended endeavors; and 
• On balance, waivers of the job-offer/labor certification requirements would benefit the United 
States. 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889-91 (AAO 2016). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Petitioner meets the EB-2 requirement, and his proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The Director also determined that the Petitioner had established that the proposed 
endeavor met the substantial merit portion of the first prong set forth in the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. The Director's decision then provided a well-reasoned explanation as to why he does not 
merit a national interest waiver. 
B. The proposed endeavor does not have national importance 
Rather than address the Director's conclusions on appeal, the Petitioner generally discusses the 
importance of his field and provides conclusory statements that his proposed endeavor is 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients and persons who learn the PDR technique to 
impact the field of PDR more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Nor has he 
shown that the particular work he proposes to undertake offers original innovations that contribute to 
advancements or otherwise has broader implications for his field. 1 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his specific endeavor has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. When 
determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, USCIS must focus on the 
particular venture, specifically on its "potential prospective impact." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N 
Dec. at 889. "An undertaking may have national importance, for example, because it has national or 
even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. A nationally important venture may even focus 
on only one geographic area of the United States. Id. at 889-90. "An endeavor that has significant 
1 The Petitioner's statement states that he studied PDR with the best instructors and worked hard to master the established 
technique. 
2 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the potential impact of his 
proposed endeavor beyond his business, employees, clients, and trainees. Without evidence regarding 
any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the record 
does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's 
endeavor would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Id. at 890. 
Therefore, upon consideration of the entire record, including the arguments made on appeal, we adopt 
and affirm the Director's decision regarding national importance. See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 
26 l&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 l&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and 
evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved 
by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided 
the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
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. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's 
appeal , we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding the remaining issues. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of 
L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude he has not established that he is eligible for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3