dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: May 15, 2024 In Re: 28536954 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a sales director, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 classification. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that while the record did 
establish that the proposed endeavor was of substantial merit, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
the endeavor was nationally important, that the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, or that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer 
and labor certification. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the 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 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, following a de novo review, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Regarding her claim of eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong, the Petitioner wrote in her professional 
plan and statement that her proposed endeavor is to work as a sales director, "direct[ing] an organization's 
sales teams" by setting goals, analyzing data, and developing training programs for organizations' sales 
representatives. 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that in denying the petition, the Director 
"imposed novel substantive and evidentiary requirements." An appeal must specifically identify any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3(a)(l)(v). Although the Petitioner asserts that she has provided evidence sufficient to 
demonstrate her eligibility for a national interest waiver, she does not specify, as required, how the 
Director erred or what factors in the decision were erroneous. 
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. In Dhanasar, we further 
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." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
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. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that her proposed work is national in scope because it "generate[s] 
substantial ripple effects upon key business activities on behalf of the United States," and is a "vital 
aspect of U.S. sales operations and productivity." 
Though the Petitioner has acted as a contractor for thel Icompany since 2007, the record does 
not clarify if she intends to continue working with them. 2 The professional plan and statement 
submitted in response to the request for evidence (RFE) states that she intends to continue working in 
the U.S. as a sales director "in the field of Business." She elaborates that she intends to "help fill the 
many available positions in the United States" and that her skills will "enable the growth of the 
American companies that I will work for." The Petitioner has not explained logistically how she 
would act as a "sales director" for multiple companies simultaneously. Anyone seeking this waiver 
must identify "the specific endeavor" that they propose to undertake. Id. at 889; see generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual ("The term 'endeavor' is more specific 
than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation 
normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that 
occupation."). 
The evidence presented also does not demonstrate that the endeavor as proposed rises the level of 
national importance. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national 
importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of her 
work. 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 
893. 
Here, the Petitioner has not described how her employment as a sales director will have a broader 
impact on the field of U.S. business. The appeal brief argues that her specific endeavor "will have 
multiple positive effects on the U.S. marketplace, thus enhancing business operations on behalf of the 
nation, and contributing to a streamlined economic landscape." However, these generalized 
statements focus on the sales field and do not explain how the specific endeavor's impact will extend 
beyond her partner companies to the broader business sphere. The record presented does not provide 
sufficient support for her arguments either. 3 The Petitioner submitted articles discussing many U.S. 
and international business-related topics. Nevertheless, these reports do not address the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor or how it would have broad implications in the business field in a way that 
implicates national importance. 4 
I 
2 The Petitioner 
l 
submitted letter from ____ the Commercial Manager of
indicating that the company has an interest in the Petitioner selling their products. However, the letter is dated 
July 20, 2022, after the date of the petition's filing. A petitioner must meet all the eligibility requirements of the petition 
at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(I), (12). 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 The Petitioner additionally submitted letters from co-workers, in which the authors attest to the Petitioner's acumen and 
capabilities, and evidence of her awards and recognitions from her work withl l However, the Petitioner does 
not explain how this evidence is relevant to national imp01tance it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments, not 
the specific endeavor's potential impact in the field of business. 
3 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from Dr. I I a professor in business management at 
_____ As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by a petitioner 
as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will 
reject an opinion or give it less weight ifit is not in accord with other information in the record or if it 
is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here the advisory opinion is of little probative value as 
Dr.I !evaluation of national interest primarily discusses the Brazilian market economy, U.S. 
investment there, and how companies doing business in Brazil would benefit from someone with the 
Petitioner's skills. From this information he makes the sweeping conclusory finding that the 
Petitioner's specific endeavor is nationally important. Yet, he neglects to explain how the proposed 
endeavor impacts the business field beyond the individual corporations the Petitioner would partner 
with or how her endeavor would have an economic impact on par with national importance. See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889 (noting that the focus of prong one is not the importance of the field, 
industry, or profession but the specific endeavor the noncitizen proposes to undertake). From the 
evidence provided, the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor will have a national 
impact on the U.S. business field. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. An endeavor 
that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area, may have national importance . Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 890. Here, however, the Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence to show that her work 
will have a positive economic effect on par with national importance. The appeal brief states that the 
Petitioner's endeavor is nationally important because it will "generate substantial ripple effects upon 
key business activities" and is a "vital aspect of U.S. sales operations and productivity." Nevertheless, 
the appeal brief does not then cite to any evidence to support these blanket statements. Additionally, 
the supporting record does not provide any documentation regarding projected U.S. economic impact 
attributable to her future work. As discussed above, the evidence presented by the Petitioner, namely 
the articles, letters, and recognitions froml I do not address how the specific endeavor in the 
U.S. will have a significant positive economic impact. Rather the articles discuss the business field at 
large, and the letters and recognition speak mainly to the Petitioner's skills and past achievements. 
Thus, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the 
Petitioner's work as a sales director would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally 
important because it wi11 not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish 
that her proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond her partner companies to affect the region 
or nation more broadly . 26 I&N Dec. at 893. She has also not shown that benefits to the regional or 
national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, we find that the record 
does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the 
first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for 
a national interest waiver. 
4 
As the identified reasons for dismissal are dis positive 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) (stating that "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 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 find 
that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5