dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 26, 2023 In Re: 28432321 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business administrator, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner 
also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, 
when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualifies 
for the underlying EB-2 classification , but that the record did not establish that the Petitioner qualifies 
for the national interest waiver. 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 nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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 EB-2 eligibility, 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 USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 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 their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a bachelor's degree in business administration in Brazil in 2008. In 2001, she 
began working at an English-language school in Brazil, first as an administrative assistant, then as an 
assistant director and, finally, business manager. She worked at the school until she 
entered the United 
States in 2019 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor, later changing status to that of the F-2 spouse of an F-1 
nonimmigrant student. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions with post­
baccalaureate experience equivalent to an advanced degree. The issue before us 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. 
A. Proposed Endeavor 
In order to discuss whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor meets the three Dhanasar prongs, we 
must first know details about the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner initially stated that "proposed 
endeavor [is] to work as a business manager" and "a business administration professional," but she 
provided no further details about her intended work in the United States. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner cited a USCIS press release 2 which announced 
"updated guidance" relating to "the unique considerations for . . . entrepreneurs" seeking national 
interest waivers. The Petitioner submitted a 70-page business plan, indicating that she sought to create 
a "Consultancy, Assistance and Training Office in Corporate Administrative Management" to serve 
"educational institutions and small business" by providing services in "Competence Mapping," 
"Identification of skills gaps," "Expatriation process," "Recruitment and selection," "Payroll 
management," "Corporate Governance," and "Service and Operations Management." 
The Director issued a NOID, stating that the Petitioner had changed her proposed endeavor. The 
Director stated: 
Instead of providing additional information explaining why her proposed endeavor as a 
Manager is of national importance, she introduced a new endeavor as an entrepreneur. 
... The beneficiary did not [initially] indicate ... her entrepreneurial intentions. Only 
in response to the RFE did she provide a Business Plan and indicate her intentions to 
open her own company. 
In response to the NOID, the Petitioner asserted that she had clarified, not changed, her proposed 
endeavor. 
2 https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-updates-guidance-on-national-interest-waivers. 
2 
In the denial notice, the Director stated: "Instead of providing more details about the proposed 
endeavor in response to the RFE and NOID, the beneficiary responded by significantly changing the 
endeavor .... The beneficiary's establishment of a new company formed after the filing date cannot 
retroactively establish eligibility." 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the info1mation in the business plan is consistent with her 
initial claim that she would "work as a business manager." 
We agree with the Director that a petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements at the time of filing 
the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). The establishment of a new company after the filing date is 
not necessarily a material change to the proposed endeavor if the initial description of the proposed 
endeavor indicates plans to establish such a company. But in this case, the Petitioner's initial 
description of the proposed endeavor did not include or imply such plans. 
The Petitioner maintains that she did not change her proposed endeavor, but rather had elaborated 
upon it. But her claims about how the proposed endeavor satisfied the Dhanasar requirements 
changed significantly after the Director issued the RFE. The Petitioner's argument that she was merely 
providing more details about fundamentally the same proposed endeavor does not account for the 
substantial changes to the Petitioner's claims under the various elements of the Dhanasar framework. 
In her initial submission, the Petitioner had not relied on any arguments regarding entrepreneurship. 
After receiving the RFE, however, the Petitioner has centered her claims around policy guidance 
concerning entrepreneurs, along with job creation and other economic benefits that the Petitioner 
claimed would arise from her work as a management consultant. At the time of filing, the Petitioner 
cited her years of experience as a manager at the English school in Brazil. She has not claimed any 
experience as an entrepreneur or as a management consultant working with outside clients. 
As discussed below, the Petitioner's more detailed assertions in support of the national interest waiver 
claim derive from the revised version of her proposed endeavor, rather than the endeavor described 
when she first filed the petition. 
B. National Importance 
The first Dhanasar 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. 
Regarding the first Dhanasar prong, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had established the 
substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, but not its national importance. The Petitioner initially 
stated that her proposed endeavor would have national impmiance because: 
Organizations ... depend on new management systems and a new body ofprofessionals 
capable of keep[ing] them in conditions of constant growth and update [sic] to stay in 
3 
the market. Those who are able to handle management skill better can [make] a 
difference in the corporate environment, taking their companies to the top of the 
success lists. Therefore, as a business administration professional, I am an expert in 
leading people towards defined goals, in managing projects, I am an expert in the 
financial management of the business, international trade, customer service, in creating 
means for innovative solutions within the company, and also in keeping the focus on 
environmental sustainability. These are aspects of impact on the management of 
companies and on the economy of a country. 
In the same initial statement, the Petitioner addressed the claimed national importance of "Project 
Management," "Financial Management," "Customer Service," "Sustainability," "Leadership and 
Management People," and "Foreign Trade." She did not provide any specific details about how her 
proposed endeavor would address these areas. Instead, her statement essentially amounted to 
background information about them. 
The Petitioner did not initially state that she would be an entrepreneur, hire employees, or provide 
consulting services to clients. Rather, she indicated that she would serve the national interest "[a]s an 
administrator," and discussed ways in which her work would help her unspecified employer. 
In response to the RFE and afterwards, the Petitioner cited previously unclaimed factors: 
• Her "knowledge of the Brazilian market"; 
• Creation of "up to 8 direct jobs" within five years, and between 22 and 67 indirect jobs, 
depending on how the indirect job creation is calculated; 
• Participation in "a robust production chain"; 
• Providing "the local community [with] access to quality information about the financial market 
at affordable prices"; and 
• Tax revenues from her company's economic activities. 
The Petitioner also stated that her business would "invest part of [its] revenue to carry out cultural and 
social actions with the local community ... as described below." The discussion that followed, 
however, did not concern "cultural and social actions." Rather, there followed two pages of discussion 
about how the Petitioner planned to promote her business. 
Much of the Petitioner's statement and business plan appears to consist of general statements about 
various beneficial concepts, sometimes with little or no explanation of their relevance to the proposed 
endeavor. For instance, as noted above, the Petitioner stated that she intends to provide "quality 
information about the financial market at affordable prices," but she did not explain how this is 
relevant to her intended work in management consulting. The Petitioner did not indicate that her 
company would participate in "the financial market," and she stated that her prospective clientele 
would consist of "educational institutions and small business[ es]," rather than financial service 
providers. 
Also of questionable relevance, the Petitioner's list of "[s]ustainable practices proposed by the 
enterprise" includes an apparent reference to pharmaceutical products: "Follow the manufacturer's 
4 
instructions regarding conditions of use, dosage, refilling, optimal response times, expiration dates, 
etc." The Petitioner did not explain how this passage relates to her proposed endeavor. 
The business plan also includes the assertion that there is a need for "immigration reform," but the 
plan does not explain how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would bring about that reform. 
The Petitioner stated that her "proposed endeavor has national or even global implications within a 
particular field (General and Operations Manager, for a Consulting, Advisory and Training Company 
in Business Administration Management) and impacts a matter that a government entity has described 
as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives." The Petitioner did not elaborate 
as to the national or global implications of her proposed endeavor. The overall significance of the 
entire field of management consulting does not establish the national importance of one patiicular 
management consulting firm. 
As noted above, the Petitioner has noted that USCIS announced '"updated guidance" relating to "the 
unique considerations for ... entrepreneurs" seeking national interest waivers. 3 The Petitioner did not 
discuss details of this policy guidance and explain how it is relevant to her petition; she simply noted 
that policy guidance exists with respect to entrepreneurs who seek national interest waivers. 
The policy guidance does not create a presumption of eligibility for entrepreneurs. Such individuals 
still bear the burden of proof to establish that they meet each of the Dhanasar prongs. For instance, a 
stated intention to create jobs in an economically depressed area does not invariably establish national 
importance. Rather, Dhanasar calls for job creation at a level that produces "substantial positive 
economic effects." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The Petitioner has not shown that her 
proposed endeavor would yield that level ofjob creation. 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner "has not offered sufficient information and 
evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of 
national importance." Regarding the Petitioner's job creation claims, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner had not shown that the proposed endeavor "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers 
or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation." Regarding the Petitioner's 
reliance on job multipliers to estimate indirect job creation, the Director stated that speculating about 
jobs created outside the Petitioner's company did not establish that the proposed endeavor itself "has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers." The Director concluded that "the record does not show 
that the beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her future employer and 
its clientele to impact her field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance." 
On appeal, the Petitioner essentially repeats claims from her prior statements and the business plan for 
her proposed endeavor. She does not address, and therefore has not overcome, the Director's concerns 
and conclusions about those earlier claims. 
The Petitioner's initial iteration of her proposed endeavor relied on general assertions about 
management, and did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor in particular. 
Her subsequent statements included more detail but described a substantially different proposed 
3 This guidance was implemented in the USCIS Policy Manual, which includes "Specific Evidentiary Considerations for 
Entrepreneurs." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F .6(D)( 4 ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
5 
endeavor, and relied on almost entirely different arguments regarding its claimed national importance. 
The Petitioner has cited information about the overall importance of small businesses, job creation, 
and management training, but she has not shown that, or explained how, her specific proposed 
endeavor would have national importance within those contexts. 
For the reasons explained above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established the 
national impo1iance of her proposed endeavor. 
Detailed discussion of the remaining Dhanasar prongs cannot change the outcome of this appeal. 
Therefore, we reserve argument on the other prongs. 4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as 
a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 ( 1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter olL-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). 
6