dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUNE 6, 2023 In Re : 26965007 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chief executive officer, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. See 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. 
§ 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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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. 
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. 
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). Dhanasar states that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance; (2) that the noncitizen 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In the decision, the Director stated that the Petitioner responded to a prior request for evidence (RFE) 
with evidence that he has a U.S. baccalaureate degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by at least 
five years of progressive experience in the specialty, which alludes to second-preference eligibility 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has 
established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be 
in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a 
waiver of the requirement of a job offer is warranted. 
Initially, the Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan to "direct the operations of ... a travel agency 
that will specialize in the organization of trips around the U.S., excursions, and cruises." The 
Petitioner also submitted a business plan that indicates his company, founded in 2021, "is a Florida­
based travel agency" that will "target clients across the U.S. as well as visitors coming from Brazil to 
the U.S." and it "will start targeting all Latin American tourists to the U.S. in Year 2." Although the 
Petitioner described the occupation he seeks as "chief executive officer" on the Form 1-140, Immigrant 
Petition for Alien Workers, his business plan states that he will work as the "general manager" of his 
travel agency. Additionally, the business plan's employee hiring schedule indicates that the company 
will employ the following: one "sales representative" in each of the first five years of operation; three 
"customer service representatives" in the fifth year, increasing from two in the second through fourth 
years, and one in the first year; and one "reservation agent" in the fourth and fifth years, totaling six 
employees, including the Petitioner, in the fifth year. The business plan anticipates total sales of 
$398,455 and total payroll expenses of $230,885 for the six employees, including the Petitioner, in the 
fifth year of operation. 
The Director sent the Petitioner an RFE to inform him, in relevant part, that the documents he sent in 
support of his petition do not establish that the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and 
national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
More specifically, the Director observed that "[t]here is no evidence to illustrate that the rate of pay 
the [P]etitioner intends to pay his current or prospective employees would have 'substantial positive 
economic effects' such as revenue or job creation," again referencing the first Dhanasar prong. See 
id. The Director further observed that the record "does not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor 
offers benefits which extend beyond the community to impact the entrepreneurial industry more 
broadly. The Director also addressed how the record does not satisfy the second and third Dhanasar 
prongs. See id. at 888-91. Accordingly, the Director requested additional evidence that may establish 
the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, along with evidence that 
satisfies the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 
2 
In response to the Director's RFE, in relevant part, the Petitioner submitted an updated letter discussing 
his professional plan. The Petitioner's RFE response letter summarizes his prior academic and work 
experience and it reasserts, "I intend to continue using my expertise and knowledge to work as a [ c ]hief 
[ e ]xecutive [ o ]fficer ... as a reference in the travel operator industry in the United States, specifically 
i~ IFlorida." The Petitioner states that he "will continue to participate in major fairs and 
events to promote the evolution and news of a travel destination [and] develop business partnerships 
with influencers to brand the destination, allowing me to generate sales." 
We note that the Petitioner also resubmitted a duplicate copy of the cover page of the business plan 
already in the record; however, the immediately following page appears to be the middle of another 
document, beginning with page number 21, captioned as I II IWe further note that the remainder of the duplicate 
copy of the business plan, beginning with page number 2 and ending with page number 38, appears in 
the Petitioner's RFE response following a cover page that reads "Tab 9.2 Refer to Tab 7.2 - Industry 
Reports and Articles." Thus, the RFE response contains a duplicate copy of the Petitioner's business 
plan, albeit not in continuous order. 
In the decision, the Director observed that "the document highlighted as being the [P]etitioner's 
business Ian is merel an article ublished b ATKeame , Global Business Polic Counsel, entitled 
and is not a business plan documenting the [P]etitioner's proposed endeavor as claimed." As 
addressed above, though, the RFE response contains a duplicate copy of the Petitioner's business plan 
in its entirety, albeit not in continuous order. Moreover, the record already contained a copy of the 
Petitioner's business plan at the time of filing and he need not have resubmitted a duplicate copy of 
the business plan in response to the RFE. We withdraw the Director's statement in the decision 
regarding the Petitioner's business plan, particularly to the extent that it may have indicated the record 
does not contain the business plan at all. 
The Director further observed in the decision that "the [P]etitioner 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." Accordingly, the Director 
concluded that the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as 
required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. at 889-90. Although the Director did not address whether 
the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the decision further concludes that the record does not 
satisfy the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See id. at 888-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again addresses his prior academic and work experience and he asserts that 
his proposed endeavor of operating a travel agency will have national importance. He references the 
business plan discussed above and he specifically emphasizes that the plan anticipates "total payroll 
expenses of $230,885 thousand [sic] dollars in a total of five (5) years of operation, in the state of 
Florida." The Petitioner also asserts that industry reports and articles in the record establish that his 
proposed endeavor has national importance. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 
"specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
3 
Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first 
prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that have broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
We first note that although the Petitioner's academic and prior employment experience is material to 
the second Dhanasar prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed 
endeavor-it is immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether the specific proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-91. Therefore, we need not address the 
Petitioner's academic and prior employment experience further with regard to the Director's 
conclusion that the record does not establish the proposed endeavor has national importance. 
The Petitioner's reliance on appeal on generalized "industry reports and articles" is misplaced for 
similar reasons to those already address. Again, in determining national importance, the relevant 
question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; 
instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] 
proposes to undertake." See id. at 889. None of the referenced articles address either the Petitioner 
or how his specific, proposed endeavor may have national importance; therefore, they are immaterial 
to the first Dhanasar prong. See id. 
Turning to the business plan, the Petitioner's endeavor appears to benefit his company and its clients 
or customers. However, the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor of organizing trips, 
excursions, and cruises will have "national or even global implications within a particular field, such 
as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or have 
broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. The record 
does not establish how generating total sales of $398,455 in the fifth year of operation demonstrates 
substantial positive economic effects in general, or in thel IFlorida, metropolitan area where 
the travel agency will base its operations more specifically. See id. Relatedly, the record does not 
establish how total payroll expenses of $230,885 for six employees, including the Petitioner, in the 
fifth year of operation demonstrates significant potential tol employ y-s. workers or other substantial 
positive economic effects, again either in general or in the Florida, metropolitan area more 
specifically. See id. We note that payroll expenses of $230,885 for six workers is an average annual 
compensation of less than $38,500 per worker, and the record does not establish how that average 
compensation, particularly for a workforce of six individuals, indicates substantial positive economic 
effects. See id. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner stated he would "participate in major fairs and events to promote 
the evolution and news of a travel destination [ and] develop business partnerships with influencers to 
brand the destination, allowing me to generate sales." However, the record does not establish how the 
Petitioner's generalized participation in fairs and events and partnership with influencers would 
"promote the evolution and news" ofl IFlorida, as a travel destination beyond its current status, 
and it does not establish how the Petitioner's activities would manifest with "national or even global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances" or have broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ 
4 
U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
In summation, 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 
reserve our opinion regarding whether the record establishes that the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, also required by the first Dhanasar prong, and whether the record satisfies the second 
or third Dhanasar prong. 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 ofL-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 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5