dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Administration

U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the
and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office 
Services 
In Re: 25983021 Date: MAY 4, 2023 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business administration specialist, seeks second preference 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 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 she 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 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 also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS ' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. Id. at 890. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate 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. Id. at 890-91. 
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 proposed endeavor has substantial merit, but not national 
importance, and she also did not meet the second and third prong of Dhanasar. On appeal, the 
Petitioner contends that the Director erred by applying a stricter standard of review and not evaluating 
the evidence in totality, specifically her personal statement, business plan, industry research, letters of 
recommendation, and expert opinion letters. The Petitioner claims the overall quality of evidence 
under the preponderance of evidence standard demonstrates her endeavor's national importance. 
As the Director already determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, we 
will only analyze whether the Petitioner's endeavor is of national importance. If the Petitioner does 
not meet the first prong, the evidence is dispositive in finding the Petitioner ineligible for the national 
interest waiver, and we need not address the second and third prongs. Upon de novo review, we find 
2 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her endeavor satisfies the national importance element of 
Dhanasar's first prong, as discussed below. 
The Petitioner's proposed employment as stated on Form I-140 is "business administration specialist" 
who "[d]evelop[s] high-quality business strategies and plans in line with short-term and long-term 
objective" and "[r]eview[s] sales and activity reports, performance data, and financial statements." 2 
The Petitioner specified in the January 20, 2021 letter that her proposed endeavor is to "apply her 
education and expertise in the Agricultural and Food Industries ... for the benefit of the U.S. public, 
via her employment as the Business Development Specialist at I 3 The Petitioner 
described I I as a "self-owned company" based in California importing fruits and 
vegetables from Mexico and distributing them in the United States. The Petitioner initially claimed 
that "her proposed endeavor in the agricultural food industry is of national importance and intrinsic 
merit" because "her industry knowledge, experience, and extensive professional skills will play a 
significant role in managing the import of fruits and vegetable from Mexico," and "the company will 
create employment for qualified workers in the Fruit and Vegetable Wholesaling Industry, thereby 
fulfilling U.S. industry needs and benefitting the U.S. economy." The Petitioner's supporting 
documents included her personal statement, a business plan, letters of recommendation, two expert 
opinion letters, the company's registration and articles of incorporation, a permit to import plants and 
plant products, a business contract, and industry related articles and statistics on fresh produce harvest 
and distribution. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what she claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter ofChawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met her burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the Director properly analyzed individual documentation submitted by the Petitioner and weighed her 
entire evidence to evaluate the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of evidence. 
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. Hence, the Petitioner 
must demonstrate the national importance of her providing specific entrepreneurial services in 
importing, distributing, and wholesaling of fresh produce than the national importance of the produce 
industry in which she intends to work. We acknowledge the Petitioner's submission of "Economic 
Contribution of the Food and Beverage Industry" report by the Committee for Economic 
Development. The report discusses the value and importance of the food industry and specifically 
indicates that California is among the states with the most food and beverage manufacturing 
establishments in which there are significant markets for food manufacturing output. Although we 
recognize the importance of the food industry and significant contributions from food suppliers, 
merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor. 
2 See the Petitioner's Form T-140, Part 6 (Basic Information About the Proposed Employment), Items 1 and 3, on page 4, 
filed on January 21, 2021. 
3 The letter occasionally refers to the company as but the Petitioner's business plan and other corporate 
documents indicate that the company's name is I 
3 
The Petitioner also submitted two expert opinion letters, one from I an 
associate professor of quantitative management atl IUniversity, and I _ 
agronomist at Ia nanoliquid technology company for agriculture production. These letters 
explain the importance of the agricultural and food industries but does not discuss specific impact of 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as the business administrator ofl IFor example, 
I lstates that "the fruit and vegetable industry is of economic importance to the U.S." and 
"fruits and vegetables contribute more than $16 billion to the Northeast U.S. and support more than 
70,000 jobs both on and off the farm." Although I I claims that the Petitioner's role "will 
be substantial in this industry by a developing a customer base and expanding the network of valuable 
business contacts," she does not indicate any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
specifically attributable to the Petitioner's company that is based in California. 
Similarly, I I discusses how U.S. imports of fresh fruit and vegetables have increased 
substantially and such imports increase consumer choice, keep prices low, and raise the purchasing 
power for consumers. I further states that "small businesses, such as I I 
are essential to their communities, creating jobs and giving back during times of prosperity and 
challenge" and that "American small businesses have been critical in revitalizing economically 
distressed areas." However, the Petitioner does not contend that she would operate the company out 
of economically depressed areas or that she would utilize a significant population of workers in such 
depressed areas. 
In addition, the letters of recommendations describe the Petitioner's experience, skills, and abilities in 
her field. However, this type of evidence relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. Under 
Dhanasar's first prong, the issue is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to 
undertake has national importance. The Petitioner initially submitted a letter from I I 
a former co-worker at an administration and finances director 
of _______ 4 Although these letters praise the Petitioner's marketing abilities that 
"maximize[ d] outreach and sales of magazines" and "extraordinary proficiency in business 
management for the agricultural food industry," they only address the Petitioner's past 
accomplishments and do not address the specific nature of her proposed future endeavor. The 
Petitioner further supplied additional letters of recommendation from two employees of her own 
company, I I and two business partners at I II I These letters demonstrate that the Petitioner is actively hiring and building her company but 
do not offer sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of her proposed 
endeavor rising to the level of national importance. 
In Dhanasar, we 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. at 889. We 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. On appeal, the Petitioner relies on her personal statement and business plan to show that her 
4 
4 is a Mexican company created by the Petitioner, focused on exporting and distributing fruits and 
vegetables from Mexico to the United States. 
business has national importance and emphasizes the following economic estimation asserted in her 
personal statement: 
_____ has recently bought 320,000 Lbs of HASS avocado in the first trimester of 
operations. I estimate we will import and distribute more than 500,000 Lbs ... in the first 
year. 
is is currently buying and importing two loads valued at $300,0000 ... every 
week. I envisage our purchase will increase to $1,000,000 in the short term. 
We are currently in a steep ramp-up and hiring plan to reach over ten employees before January 
2023 to accommodate our client growing demand, as well as our expansion to Florida, Arizona, 
and California. 
The Petitioner further highlights the business plan's five-year projection metrics as follows: 
The Company currently delivers four fruit and vegetable containers per month, valued at 
$36,000 to $40,000. The Company's goal is to deliver seven containers a month .... [T]he 
Company will increase its gross revenues from $1,924,000 in Year 1, to $4,448,250 in Year 5. 
The Company will hire 15 employees by Year 5, including three Sales Representatives, Four 
Driver, one Import clerk, one Accountant, one Sales Manager, and four Warehouse Workers. 
The Company's payroll expenses are expected to start at $230,000 in Year 1, and increase to 
$522,116 in Year 5. 
The Petitioner, however, does not offer any relevant supporting evidence to corroborate her assertions 
raised in her personal statement and business plan. The record does not sufficiently detail the basis 
for its financial and staff projections, or adequately support how these projections will be realized. 
While these metrics indicate that the Petitioner's company has growth potential, it does not 
demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her business would 
reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. In the same 
way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally important 
because the effects of his/her work are primarily limited to his/her school or district, we find that the 
Petitioner has not established her proposed endeavor in this case will sufficiently extend beyond her 
clientele and employees to affect the regional or national economy more broadly. Id. at 893. 
For these reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework and thus, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, further analysis 
of her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful 
5purpose. 
5 The Petitioner on appeal contends that she seeks a national interest waiver because it is impractical for an entrepreneur 
to secure a job offer from a U.S. employer, and there is no provision in the Department of Labor regulations permitting a 
self-petitioning entrepreneur to file a labor certification. As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of 
her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, we need not address this claim on the 
balancing factors under the third prong. 
5 
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. 
6