dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
In Re: 32456168 Date: SEP. 23, 2024 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , a business administration and finance professional, 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish 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 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 Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification
, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 
they must then demonstrate 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 l&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 
1 See 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner, a business administration and finance professional, qualifies 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. After considering the Petitioner's 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) to establish that the Petitioner satisfied each 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical frame work, the Director denied the petition. The Director 
concluded that although the Petitioner established the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, he 
had not established that it had national importance, that he was well positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor, and that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United 
States. The Director found, therefore, that a favorable exercise of discretion in waiving the job 
requirement was not warranted. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as described in a business plan submitted with the Petitioner's 
RFE response, is "a consultancy that specializes in telemedicine supply chain management." In an 
amended personal statement submitted with his response, the Petitioner clarified that he intended "to 
build on [his] extensive experience and expertise in supply chain management (SCM) and research in 
telemedicine to develop a novel telemedicine platform that connects patients with health professionals, 
through the location of kiosks, computers, and tablets, facilitating continuous access through cell 
phones in rural areas in order to eliminate access barriers to healthcare for the rural communities, 
migrant population, and people with mobility and transportation difficulties and reducing healthcare 
costs in treatments and diagnoses." and to "continue to support advancements in [his] field by offering 
the population from Florida and Puerto Rico access to healthcare consultation and medical response 
through mobile devices." 
On appeal, the Petitioner contests the Director's observation that "[n]o evidence was submitted 
establishing that the proposed endeavor will influence [the Petitioner's] field or otherwise be of 
importance to the nation as a whole." The Petitioner argues that this indicates the Director's failure to 
"contemplate or discuss the totality of the evidence submitted for proving that the proposed endeavor 
has both substantial merit and national importance." The Petitioner cites to Buletini v. INS, 860 F. 
Supp. 1222, 1233 (E.D. Mi. 1994), noting that in that case, the court stated that the "failure to consider 
all of the relevant evidence submitted by a plaintiff constitutes an abuse of discretion." He contends 
that, as the Director did not contemplate all of the evidence submitted, USCIS' determination that the 
Petitioner did not meet the requirements of the first Dhanasar prong by a preponderance of the 
evidence amounts "to an abuse of discretion on the part of the adjudicator." The court in Buletini did 
not suggest that USCIS abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each 
piece of evidence. 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. See 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. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. US. INS, 
984 F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). Here the record reflects that the Director's decision explicitly 
2 
referenced evidence submitted with the initial petition and RFE response and considered it in 
concluding that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner further objects to the Director's observation in the denial that "[t]he Petitioner did not 
shift to explain why his specific proposed endeavor reaches a level that would be considered national 
in scope," and asserts that Director abused their discretion by imposing "a novel and substantive 
standard" to meet the national importance aspect of Dhanasar's first prong. The Director's 
observation in the denial appears to conflate the eligibility requirements in the Dhanasar first prong, 
( which requires a showing of substantial merit and national importance, and focuses on the specific 
endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake), 2 in part, with the framework put forth in our 
precedent decision, Matter ofNew York State Dep 't ofTransp. (NYSDOT), 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Acting 
Assoc. Comm'r 1998), which USCIS previously used to evaluate national interest waiver petitions. 
The NYSDOT framework looked first to see if a petitioner has shown that the area of employment is 
of "substantial intrinsic merit." Id. at 217. Next, a petitioner had to establish that any proposed benefit 
from the individual's endeavors will be "national in scope." Id. In announcing the Dhanasar 
framework we vacated NYSDOT. 
However, the record reflects that the Director did not determine the Petitioner's ineligibility under 
Dhanasar 's first prong based solely upon this observation, as asserted. For example, the Director also 
considered whether evidence in the record was sufficient to show "that the benefits to the national 
economy resulting from the petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of '"substantial positive 
economic effects"' contemplated by Dhanasar 3 and whether evidence demonstrated that the proposed 
endeavor "will have a broader impact on the field outside of [the Petitioner's] prospective company 
and/or clients." 
The Petitioner lastly argues on appeal that, but for the Director's abuse of discretion, the evidence 
submitted establishes the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Upon de novo review of the 
record, we conclude the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate 
the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required under the first prong of the Dhansar. 4 
The first prong of Dhanasar, 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. 
The Petitioner contends that he submitted numerous articles in the record establishing the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. Upon review, these articles generally discuss rural health in 
America, and the importance of telemedicine in improving health outcomes. We acknowledge the 
Petitioner's argument on appeal that the expansion of telehealth medicine services into rural 
communities is important to the nation's societal well-being. However, 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." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
2 See Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
3 Id. at 890. 
4 The Director determined that the Petitioner had established the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. 
3 
The Petitioner further contends that the national importance of his proposed endeavor is demonstrated 
in part by "the existence of national initiatives intimately aligned with [his] endeavor to provide 
telemedicine services to immigrant rural communities in the United States." To support this 
contention, he refers to the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2023, and to reports from the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). ARP A provides funding for grants to expand 
telehealth services in rural communities while the Consolidated Appropriations Act provides for the 
expansion of telehealth services in the Medicare program. The CDC and HRSA reports generally 
discuss the importance of telemedicine in providing healthcare to rural populations. While these 
documents indicate the importance of telemedicine and the important role it can play in providing 
medical services to rural communities, they do not specifically show the government's interest in the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In evaluating national importance under the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, we will consider evidence demonstrating how a specific proposed endeavor 
impacts a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or a matter that 
is the subject of national initiatives. However, providing consulting services in an area that is adjacent 
to the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national 
importance of a specific endeavor. The Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential prospective 
impact of his specific proposed endeavor in that area. Here he has not offered evidence, such as 
documentation showing that he has received ARPA funding, or letters demonstrating U.S government 
agencies' or quasi-governmental agencies interest in his proposed endeavor, 5 sufficient to demonstrate 
interest in his proposed endeavor in a manner that reflects its national importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the economic impacts of his proposed endeavor also demonstrate its 
national importance. However, the Petitioner 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. The Petitioner's business plan indicates that his endeavor 
will hire five employees in the first year, and additional five employees in the second year. 6 Further 
he has not shown that his company's future staffing levels stand to provide substantial economic 
benefits in Florida, Puerto Rico, or the United States. While the increasing staffing levels indicate that 
the company has growth potential, they do not demonstrate 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. 
In addition, although the Petitioner asserts that his company will hire U.S. employees, he has not 
offered sufficient evidence that the area where his endeavor 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. For example, 
although the Petitioner indicates in his amended personal statement that the targeted market for his 
enterprise will include "Opportunity Zones" in Florida and Puerto Rico, he does not offer additional 
evidence to demonstrate that these zones are economically depressed, that he would hire workers in 
5 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3), www.uscis.gov/policymanual (discussing letters from interested 
government agencies or quasi-governmental agencies in the United States.). 
6 The business plan does not adequately explain how these staffing projections were calculated. For example, while the 
Petitioner indicates that expenses will not increase in the first year to allow for an increase in hiring, he does not provide 
these expenses or otherwise explain how this increase in staffing will be supported. 
4 
these zones, or that his enterprise would offer the population of these areas a substantial economic 
benefit. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent 
decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified 
reason for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve 
remaining arguments concerning his eligibility under the second and third prongs of 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 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 he has not established 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