dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Boat Building

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 29, 2024 In Re: 30371554 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks classification as either an advanced degree professional or an 
individual of exceptional ability. 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. 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, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification or that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement is in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification, as either a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability, the petitioner must then establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job 
offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither statute 
nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions . 
Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
the Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is 
discretionary in nature). 
pet1t10ner demonstrates that: 1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; 2) the individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 3) on balance, 
waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 
classification as either an individual of exceptional ability or an advanced degree professional. 
Regarding the Petitioner's request for a national interest waiver, the Director found that the Petitioner 
demonstrated the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor and that he is well-positioned to advance 
it, but that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the endeavor's national importance or that, on balance, 
waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that he qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability and that he has established his eligibility for a 
national interest waiver under each of the three Dhanasar prongs. Because, as we discuss below, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor, 
we need not reach the question of whether he qualifies for the EB-2 classification or the second or 
third prongs of the Dhanasar framework and we reserve our opinion regarding those issues. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). The Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor is to establish and operate a boat building business inl IFlorida. The business will 
build boats and offer workshops for training in boat building. 
In determining that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, 
the Director noted that, in determining national importance, USCIS focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake, rather than the importance of the field, industry, or 
profession. The Director concluded that the evidence, such as the business plan, letters of 
recommendation, evidence of the Petitioner's work experience, and news articles on immigration, 
small businesses, and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, did not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's business venture has the potential to flourish and improve the economy nationally or in 
thel lregion. The Director also concluded that the claims made in the recommendation letters 
and expert letter were stated without sufficient support, noting for example the claim in the expert 
letter that "[ m Jany people participate in recreational boating activities" and therefore "the proposed 
endeavor will broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural enrichment." The Director also found that 
the business plan's projected jobs and potential revenue, including the claimed indirect jobs, did not 
establish the proposed endeavor's potential for a significant impact on the economy. Overall, the 
Director concluded that the Petitioner's assertions on improving the national economy, improving 
supply chain issues, and supporting recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic were not supported by 
the record. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief in which he primarily restates the claims made before the 
Director regarding the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Indeed, the Petitioner's appeal 
brief is substantially like the brief submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). 
In the brief, the Petitioner asserts that the community in which the business will operate is 
economically depressed and there is, therefore, an "urgent need for initiatives" such as the proposed 
endeavor. The Petitioner also claims that small businesses are important to the U.S. economy, that the 
proposed endeavor will employ U.S. workers, will create additional indirect jobs, and will contribute 
to the economy overall by providing tax revenue, contributing to the supply chain, and through 
"knowledge transfer" by offering boat building workshops. 
2 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national or global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances, may have national importance. Id. Additionally, an endeavor that is 
regionally focused may nevertheless have national importance, such as an endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
Upon review, we agree with the Director that the record does not establish the proposed endeavor's 
national importance. As stated by the Director, in determining whether a proposed endeavor has 
national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in 
which an individual will work; instead, we focus on the potential prospective impact of the "specific 
endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See id. Nevertheless, on appeal, the Petitioner 
continues to emphasize the general importance of small businesses, tax revenue, job creation, 
knowledge transfer, and the economic supply chain as demonstrating the proposed endeavor's national 
importance. The Petitioner's assertions do not overcome the findings by the Director, nor do they 
establish any specific legal or factual error in the Director's finding that the Petitioner did not establish 
national importance. 
The Petitioner describes general economic and business concepts such as a "triple bottom line," tax 
collection, direct and indirect job creation, and supply chain "linkages." However, the evidence does 
not demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor of establishing a boat building 
business and offering workshops will create jobs, pay tax revenue, or otherwise contribute to the 
economy on a scale commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner does not explain how the 
endeavor's potential economic impacts, such as contributing tax revenue and creating indirect jobs, 
would result in any demonstrable effect on the regional economy, even in an economically depressed 
area, or that they would be distinct from any other small business operating in the United States. The 
Petitioner also has not demonstrated that his business's services will differ from those already 
available on the market, offer improvements or advancements that are replicable through the field, or 
otherwise would stand to broadly impact the boat building industry or the U.S. economy beyond those 
clients directly served. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by 
the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We acknowledge 
the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to his qualification as an individual of exceptional ability and 
the third Dhanasar prong but, having found that the evidence does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility as to national importance, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the record establishes 
the remaining Dhanasar prongs or his eligibility for the EB-2 classification. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
429 U.S. at 25 (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that 
are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3