dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 26, 2024 In Re: 33379557 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business administrator, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an 
individual of exceptional ability, 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. § ll 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance. 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 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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. Matter ofDhanasar, 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 (USCTS) 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. 
Id. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
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, 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 appeal brief states that the Petitioner's position as a business administrator "will broadly impact 
various areas since business management is the backbone of any given business establishment." The 
evidence provided does not demonstrate that this specific endeavor is of 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. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
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. 
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. 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. 
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). 
2 
Here, the Petitioner has not adequately established that her position as a business administrator will 
have a broader impact on the field beyond the individual company or companies she will work for. 
The brief concentrates on the various impacts of the business field on the U.S. economy and claims 
that the Petitioner's actions as a business administrator will "have broader implications, as their results 
will disseminate ... to every other field in the U.S." and "creates the opportunity to raise the standard 
of living for the United States and the world." Yet the brief and the record does not sufficiently explain 
how her employment as an individual business administrator would impact the overall field more 
broadly beyond her employer on the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner also claims that her skills "deeply differ" from others and that she will offer "business 
solutions in a range beyond the local community" to benefit the region. However, the brief does not 
supply sufficient explanations to clarify how her skills differ deeply or what solutions she will offer 
to benefit the community. Contentions require support to underpin them, as assertions themselves do 
not constitute evidence. See, e.g., Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998) ("statements in a 
brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary 
weight"). 
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate national importance either.2 The record includes the 
Petitioner's educational records, training certificates, employment verification, salary records, her 
professional identification, performance awards, and support letters. 3 The Petitioner has not explained 
how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past 
accomplishments and experiences, not the specific endeavor's potential impact in the business field. 
Generally, this type of evidence is more appropriate for the second prong when determining if the 
petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
Additionally, the Petitioner provided a letter from Dr. a professor 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). 
Nonetheless, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it 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. evaluation of national importance does not adequately 
address the requirements of Dhanasar regarding national importance. The opinion focuses on the 
importance of the business field and analyzes how the Petitioner's skills will make her a successful 
business administrator. However, this focus is misplaced as is not the importance of the field that 
determines an endeavor's national importance, but rather how the specific endeavor will impact the 
field on a level commensurate with national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Additionally, the Petitioner's ability to act as a business administrator is more applicable to 
determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under the second 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 We note that in response to the request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted updated salary and employment 
documentation, as well as a training certificate. However, the evidence shows that the Petitioner began the position and 
completed the training after the petition's filing. A petitioner must meet all of the eligibility requirements of the petition 
at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
3 
prong. Id. at 890. The opinion neglects to sufficiently analyze how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
will impact the field beyond the Petitioner's employers or offer substantial positive economic effects. 
From the evidence provided, the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor will have a 
national impact on the business field. 
Moreover, she has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake 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. 
The Petitioner avers that her employment will have "ripple effects" on the U.S. economy and will be 
a "major economic contributor." The determination of national importance hinges on an assessment 
of the broader societal or economic implications of the Petitioner's contributions, requiring she 
demonstrate broader benefits that extend beyond the confines of a local industry. See Dhanasar, 26 
I&N Dec. at 893. While any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact the 
economy, the Petitioner has not supported her claims with evidence to establish how the economic 
activity of her proposed endeavor as an individual business administrator would rise to the level of 
national importance. Thus, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 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 will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond the companies who employ 
her to affect the region or nation more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. She has 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. 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 l&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 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