dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 15959296 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG.24, 2021 
Form I-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 a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualifies 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but had not established 
that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 
2010). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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. 
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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasarstates that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, 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 off er and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national impmiance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas 
such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01). 
2 See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936F.3d 868, 2019 WL4051593 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a na tionalinterest waiver to be discretionaiyin nature). 
2 
national to secure a job off er or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate 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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
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 the Petitioner does not meet the 
national importance portion of the first prong. 
Therefore, upon consideration of the entire record, including the arguments made on appeal, we adopt 
and affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. 4 See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 26 
I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&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 bearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided 
the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
In 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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We further indicated 
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." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that bas significant 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 . at 890 . 
According to the Petitioner's business plan, his proposed endeavor is to "expand" his business from 
damage remediation "into Fire Protection and Sprinkler Services" and to generally "off er 1) Design 
and Engineering Services, 2) Installation Services, and 3) Inspections and Repairs." His "target 
customers" include "general contractors, architects, developers, and property owners." The Petitioner 
also projects a "gross margin" of $1,260,929 and "earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and 
amortization" of $824,388 in year five. Finally, he indicates that there will be seven employees, in 
addition to the chief executive officer. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the "economic impact ... is only one aspect that may be favorable 
to a petition, but is not required," and we agree. However, Dhanasar provided examples such as 
"endeavors related to research, pure science, and the furtherance of human knowledge" which "may 
3 SeeDhanasar , 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
qualify, whether or not the potential accomplishments in those fields are likely to translate into 
economic benefits for the United States." Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the focus of 
his company's work is similar to any of the listed endeavors, such that he would meet the national 
importance portion of the first prong. 
As discussed by the Director, the record does not establish that his proposed endeavor has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our 
nation as contemplated by Dhanasar. Although the Petitioner provided information regarding 
projected income and staffing levels, he has not established that they stand to provide substantial 
economic benefits to Florida or the United States. Nor has the Petitioner established thatthe area where 
the company will operate 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. Further, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking 
would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects." Id. at 890. For example, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the projected taxes to be paid in the next five years will substantially affect 
either Florida's or the United States' tax revenue or the U.S. or Florida economy more broadly ata 
level commensurate with national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies on previously-submitted "statistics" from a variety of sources, 
including the National Fire Protection Association, that he contends "support[] the importance of fire 
protection to U.S. persons, the economic impact of fire damage and prevention, and about small 
business investment in the U[nited] S[tates]." He also cites to information from the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency to argue that his proposed "endeavor of fire and disaster prevention 
and recovery is in line with national initiatives." While the information may aid in establishing the 
proposed endeavor's substantial merit, it does not demonstrate the national importance of the 
Petitioner's planned business. As previously stated, to determine national importance, we focus on 
the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," not the industry. Id. at 
8 89. The Petitioner has not adequately established how his ownership of a company, even one that he 
claims provides services that are "in line with national initiatives," satisfies the national importance 
prong under the Dhanasar analysis. The Petitioner bears the burden of articulating how they satisfy 
eligibility criteria. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
The Petitioner also relies on two letters described as being from "government entities who 
acknowledge the impacts his services have had or will have in a broader context." The letter from 
I I County Commissioner) I simply states that "based on his resume, .. . [the 
Petitioner] [p ]ossesses a valuable skill set in this area" and "his contributions in the area of safety 
could be invaluable." The letter fro ml I is complimentary of the Petitioner's "moral 
character" and indicates that his homeowner'sassociation will considerusingthe Petitioner's services. 
Neither letter, however, establishes the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
We note that in Dhanasar, the Petitioner had "developed~ !model of~~~-
I propulsion engine, as well as a novel I I method for accurately calculating 
i-------,-1 a_i_r _fl_o__.w." He not only provided "probative expert letters from individuals holding senior 
positions in academia, government, and industry that describe the importanceoj I propulsion 
research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests," but also "media articles and other evidence 
4 
documenting the interest of the House Committee on Anned Services in the development of 
I I technologies and discussing the potential significance of U.S. advances in this area of 
research and development." Here , the Petitioner's focus on the risks of fires and natural disasters in 
general doe s not address how the specific aspects of the proposed endeavor and the performanc e of 
the planned activities would have broader implications , rising to the level of national importance as 
contemplated by Dhanasar. See Dhana sar, 26 I&N Dec . at 889. 
In Dhana sar, 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. Here , we find 
the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to suffi ciently extend beyond 
his clients and their projec ts to imp act the indu stry more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance . Nor has he shown that the particul ar work he proposes to undertake offers original 
innovations that contribute to advancements in his industry , rather than just affecting projects 
involving his company , or otherwise has broad er implicat ions for his field. For all these reasons, the 
Petitioner 's propo sed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhana sar 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 I&N Dec. 516 , 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issue s on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite firstprong of theDhana sar 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 , with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5