dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23133637 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 13, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chief executive officer, seeks second preference immigrant classification as either an 
advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, 
as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). After a 
petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner 
demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 
that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer 
and thus of a labor certification. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying 
classification and that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit. Nevertheless, the Director denied 
the petition, concluding that the evidence did not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor or that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest. 
Accordingly, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner reasserts his eligibility, arguing that the Director 
did not review the evidence properly and erred in the decision. In these proceedings, it is the 
Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interest waiver .... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 10l{a)(32) of the Act, 8 USC § 1101(a)(32), provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall 
include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i i). 
2 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). In announcing this new framework, we vacated 
our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 
215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant a national interest 
waiver as matter of discretion. See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th 
Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in 
nature). As a matter of discretion, the national interest waiver may be granted if the petitioner 
demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
(3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer 
and thus of a labor certification. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three 
prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced 
degree professional. Nevertheless, the Director found the evidence insufficient to establish the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor. We agree. 
When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it 
will not be required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it 
to address every piece of evidence the Petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 
(1st Cir. 2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir.1992); see also Kazemzadeh v. U.S. 
Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. U.S. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 
1993). Therefore, while we may not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed 
and considered each one. 
In the initial filing, the Petitioner stated verbatim: 
The focus of my proposed endeavor is to continue growing my comp any, 
I I of which I am the Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder .... I 
is a global technology company specializing inl ... The 
main product is a cutting-edge I 
I I I intend to create several "Showrooms" throughout the U.S. to 
showcase thel I technology and act as regional distribution hubs from 
where our product can be rented out for nearby events. 
In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that 
"[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. Because the Petitioner's 
main focus is to grow his company and rent out his products, we cannot conclude that the proposed 
endeavor, as described, has national importance. Likewise, the record reflects thatl I 
I I technology is the subject of patents, which suggests that the technology is not available 
publicly or to the nation at large, but rather to those who engage I I in a business 
3 
transaction. Accordingly, we conclude that the primary benefits of the proposed endeavor accrue to 
the Petitioner's own business and employment, as well as to those who rentl products 
or purchase its services. 
To support a finding of national importance, the Petitioner highlighted the applicability ot l __ 
technology to various sectors and industries, including branding events, the military, entertainment, 
and education. When determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of 
the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See id. Similarly, the wide applicability of 
the technology does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. To 
establish national importance, the Petitioner must demonstrate the proposed endeavor's impact, rather 
than relying upon its applicability. Regarding the endeavor's impact, the Petitioner claimed it will 
produce positive results for other businesses, contribute to the economy by generating jobs and 
increasing tax revenue, promote! I learning, and offer the military al I 
I lsolutionl I needs. 
The Petitioner's business plan indicates that the proposed endeavor will create 17 direct jobs by year 
5; however, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how his business would create these jobs, nor 
has he explained how creating 17 jobs would rise to the level of national importance. The Petitioner 
plans to transfer thel I production process from Brazi I to the United States and asserts that the 
transfer will generate additional jobs. The Petitioner has not explained how transferring the production 
process to the United States would create jobs, nor has he explained how many jobs it would create. 
Here, the Petitioner asks that we accept, without evidence, that the transference would confer benefits 
upon the United States. The Petitioner also asserts that transferring the production process to the 
United States will increase revenue tori land the company accepting the transference, as 
well as provide cost savings tol I Benefits to the transacting companies, even if 
substantiated, would not demonstrate how the proposed endeavor's impact rises to the level of national 
importance. 
In his business plan, the Petitioner offered revenue projections for the proposed endeavor over a five­
year period; however, he offered little foundation for the calculation of these figures. The Petitioner 
has not sufficiently explained how he will achieve such revenue levels, which would necessarily 
depend on the number of businesses that transact with I I As the record currently stands, 
these projections appear to be little more than aspirations and conjecture. Therefore, we conclude that 
the business plan does not support a finding that the proposed endeavor's impact would rise to the 
level of national importance. 
The Petitioner provided the revenue projections to an economic analysis consulting organization, 
which extrapolated them to determine their overall economic impact. The individual creating the 
report stated that he presumed the Petitioner's projections to be accurate and as such, his report offered 
no independent analysis of how the Petitioner calculated them. The report stated that the proposed 
endeavor would generate a five-year total economic impact of 191 new jobs and over $46 million. 
The report further estimated that the proposed endeavor "has the potential of generating substantial 
economic impact in the United States, including increase in economic activity, creation of hundreds 
of jobs, increase in wages and salaries, and increase in tax revenue for the federal, state, and local 
governments." However, as the report relied upon figures the Petitioner provided, without inquiring 
4 
into the basis or accuracy of them, the conclusions provided in the report offer little support for the 
actual impact of the proposed endeavor. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding 
projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not 
show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's business 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 
890. Because we question the validity of the report's assumptions, we conclude that it does not show 
how the proposed endeavor's impact would rise to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner's assertion concerning the proposed endeavor's military application is likewise 
unpersuasive in establishing its national importance. While we agree that lofferl I ______ options for the armed forces, the record does not indicate that the Petitioner 
would exclusively supply this technology to the U.S. military such that it would offer the United States 
a nationally important advantage. Nor does the record contain sufficient details about thel I 
already used in the military in comparison with the Petitioner's I I such that we could 
determine how the Petitioner's technology is better or different. Furthermore, the record does not 
support a finding that the proposed endeavor operates on a scale sufficient to substantively impact the 
military' s capabilities. 
The Petitioner emphasized that his proposed endeavor offersl I learning in Science, 
Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Math (STEAM) fields. Documents suggest that the Petitioner 
offered a_ I to one high school and as a result, the students demonstrated more interest and 
enthusiasm in STEAM topics. However, these results have not been substantiated, nor has the 
Petitioner explained how the impact of such activities would rise 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. Although the 
Petitioner proposes to partner with another business to teach STEAM in schools using I I he 
provided insufficient detail concerning his plans in this area. For instance, the Petitioner has not 
explained which schools he will target, how many students he will teach, and the results he will 
achieve. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that hisl I learning would impact 
his field or the field of education more broadly to reach a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
The Petitioner provided numerous reference letters from colleagues and professional acquaintances. 
The authors of the letters extol the Petitioner's personal and professional qualifications, his past record 
of achievements, as well as his performance and experience. However, the Petitioner's qualifications 
and expertise relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor 
the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 
The authors discuss applications of the technology to various industries and the importance of those 
industries, but they do not meaningfully discuss the proposed endeavor and its impact. Although some 
of the authors noted the proposed endeavor's tax revenue and job creation potential, they offered little 
support to substantiate their conclusions. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a 
specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 
9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration 
benefits adjudications). We conclude that the authors primarily discuss topics not relevant to the 
5 
national importance of the proposed endeavor and when they discuss the proposed endeavor's impact, 
they provide unsubstantiated claims of economic benefit. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director did not review the evidence under the preponderance 
standard. In support, he relies upon arguments and evidence already submitted and found to be 
insufficient. The Petitioner emphasizes that he submitted "vast documentation" to support his 
eligibility. While we agree that the Petitioner offered a significant volume of evidence, eligibility for 
the benefit sought is not determined by the quantity of evidence alone but also the quality. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (citing Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989)). For 
instance, although the Petitioner submitted reams of promotional materials and event photos, he has 
not sufficiently established how such evidence demonstrates the proposed endeavor's national 
importance. 
The Petitioner references the updated policy guidance on national interest waiver petitions. We are 
aware of the guidance and have applied it in review of this petition. The policy guidance also reminds 
adjudicators that claims lacking corroborating evidence are not sufficient to meet a petitioner's burden. 
See generally, 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5D4, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. The Petitioner 
bears the responsibility of ensuring that the record demonstrates how he qualifies for a national interest 
waiver. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. He has not done so here. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The documentation does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, 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 would serve no meaningful purpose. Because the identified reasons for 
dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining 
arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. 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). 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6