dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 12, 2024 In Re: 30390361 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business manager, seeks second preference immigrant classification (EB-2) 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 immigrant 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 qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he 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 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 l&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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 (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: 
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). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
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 waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The 
Director determined that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance 
under the first prong of Dhanasar. 2 
Although the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director's decision "contains numerous erroneous 
conclusions of both law and fact," he does not indicate where the Director misapplied law or policy in 
the decision. The Petitioner mainly contends that he has previously provided sufficient evidence to 
show the national importance of his proposed endeavor. We examined the record, including the 
Petitioner's resume, his professional plan ( along with web-based articles and reports on the importance 
of small businesses and the talent shortage in business management), letters ofrecommendation, and 
an expert opinion letter. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have 
reviewed and considered each one. Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate his endeavor satisfies the national importance element of Dhanasar' s 
first prong, as discussed below. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake and we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. In 
Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]n 
endeavor that has 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. 
The Petitioner's initial professional plan from October 2022 states that his proposed endeavor is to 
"offer my vast experience and knowledge as a business administrator focusing on financial 
management, cost control, cost analysis, and negotiations with customers and suppliers in order to 
always bring the best financial result to the company" and "apply my strong communication skills 
within the company to contribute to the development of new leaders and team training to obtain more 
results in sales, bring more capital to the company, generate productivity gains, and seek gain and 
speed in sales and financial results." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an updated 
professional plan stating the following: 
2 The Director further concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the second or third prong of Dhanasar. 
2 
I intend to perform as a Business Administrator and provide my specialized services in 
Team management, direct sales, and leadership to impact the field of business 
administration through innovation in the U.S. Due to my extensive professional 
experience in the sales and leadership industries, I intend to focus my contributions on 
these niches first while planning to serve other industries, including training new 
leaders and developing monthly sales campaigns. 
The Petitioner claimed that his innovations and methodologies "will result in immeasurable 
contributions and impacts to the U.S. business administration section, including cost reduction, 
increased productions, quality assurance, enhancement of the workforce, job creation, and economic 
growth." However, the Petitioner has not provided any details regarding his techniques or 
methodologies, whether they are unavailable in the United States or better than that which is already 
offered in the United States. Instead, the Petitioner's proposed activities in his professional plan entail 
typical work of a business administrator, such as enhancing profitability of companies, empowering 
and developing sales teams, fostering collaboration and communication, and streamlining digital 
strategies for customer service. While individual employer or company may benefit from his business 
services, he has not offered a sufficient explanation or corroborating evidence for how this individual 
benefit rises to the level of national importance or will impact the field more broadly, as contemplated 
by Dhanasar: "[a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or 
even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that we should evaluate the prospective impact of his endeavor based 
on his past achievements and experience. The Petitioner further contends the evidence demonstrates 
how he has contributed to success of businesses throughout his career by increasing their sales and 
revenues. However, the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations 
under Dhanasar' s second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
national." Id. at 890. The issue under the first prong is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the 
national importance of his proposed work's prospective impact. 
The Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter from I I an associate professor of 
marketing at University. Professor I I discusses the Petitioner's skills and 
abilities as a business administrator and speculates on how his services can potentially improve 
business practices and improve productivity of companies while generally claiming that business 
administrators are "the backbone of any business" and "a key part of any company." However, the 
opinion letter does not offer any persuasive detail concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or 
how the endeavor's impact would extend beyond companies that he will serve. 
In addition, Professor I I asserts that the endeavor "impacts a matter that a government entity 
has described as having national importance" based on the United States' designation of "Brazil as a 
major non-NATO ally in 2019" and states that the Petitioner "plans to maintain positive relationships 
with corporations and government officials in Latin America and develop visibility within the United 
States to generate new business expansion in to the Latin American market." But the Petitioner has 
not claimed that he plans to specifically assist companies that enter the Latin American market. As a 
matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory but will 
reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it 
3 
is in any way questionable. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). As 
such, the expert opinion letter is not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of 
Dhanasar. 
We also reviewed the Petitioner's resume and letters of recommendation from his former work 
colleagues. The authors of the letters praise the Petitioner's abilities a business administrator, and the 
personal attributes that make him an asset to the workplace. While the recommendation letters 
evidence the high regard for the Petitioner and his work, they do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor or specific impact of his endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates his contention that his proposed endeavor is nationally important 
because the rapidly growing business consulting industry is facing a talent shortage and business 
management professionals are integral to the business sector's success. The Petitioner also asserts 
that the United States government's initiatives regarding small businesses raise the national 
importance of his endeavor. We acknowledge that the Petitioner's work in business administration is 
in high demand and assisting small businesses to flourish has substantial merit. However, merely 
working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. 
The Petitioner claims that providing business administration services to small and medium businesses 
to improve business strategies, gain business contracts, and increase administrative efficiencies in the 
United States would "extend beyond his professional practice" and "significantly impact the well­
being of American businesses, promoting economic growth, progress, and, in some cases, preventing 
bankruptcy." While any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact the economy, 
the record does not demonstrate how working for a company or companies as an individual business 
manager generates such significant economic activity that rises to the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. 
economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the Petitioner's claims linking 
his proposed endeavor to "great financial health for the U.S. businesses and investors, which will affect 
the entire economy" and "a positive ripple effect in the society concerning several layers of the U.S. 
society and creating new job opportunities for U.S. workers" are too attenuated to sufficiently show 
the proposed endeavor's impact at a level commensurate with national importance. Therefore, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor of working as a business 
manager has national importance. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor 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 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) (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). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that he has not established his eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5