dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Administration Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 11, 2024 In Re: 35389092 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner does not qualify for second preference immigrant classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability. The Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish a waiver of the 
job offer requirement, 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&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 ofDhanasar, 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 
• 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. 
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. 
Id. at 889. See id. at 888-91 for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director concluded that the Petitioner does not qualify for second preference 
immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability. The record does not clarify why the 
Director addressed whether the Petitioner may qualify for a national interest waiver ifhe was ineligible 
for second-preference classification. Because we nevertheless find that the record does not establish 
that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national 
interest, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies second-preference eligibility 
criteria. See section 203(b )(2) of the Act; see also INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts 
and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the 
results they reach"); Matter of L-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). 
The Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan to work as the chief executive officer for a startup 
business administration consulting services company with a "primary focus for the initial five years 
. . . on the fashion business sector, encompassing clothing, footwear, accessories, and related 
industries." The Petitioner submitted a business plan that indicates his startup business administration 
consulting services company would "offer[] a tailored consultancy specialized in strategic growth and 
marketing solutions for ... small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) facing challenges in adapting 
to the rapidly evolving market dynamics." The business plan generally indicates that the Petitioner's 
startup business administration consulting services company would be located at some unspecified 
location "in Florida" and that it "aims to operate attending clients from any part of the U.S. by offering 
physical and digital attendance." The business plan asserts that, in addition to employing himself as 
the chief executive officer, he would employ one "Jr. Consultant" and one "Commercial & Sales 
Assistant" in the first year of operations, for a total of three workers, increasing to a total of 17 workers 
in the fifth year of operations, including the following position titles: marketing manager, senior and 
junior consultants, commercial and sales manager, commercial and sales assistants, marketing analyst, 
back office manager, financial analyst, and human resources analyst. The business plan also informs 
that the workers would receive prorated annual wages ranging between $30,000 and $96,000, varying 
by position title, with scheduled increases based on years of employment. 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionaiy 
in nature). 
2 
The Petitioner also submitted documents providing generalized information regarding business, 
business administration, business administration consulting services, and similar topics. 
The Director determined that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as required in part by the 
first Dhanasar prong. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. The Director also 
acknowledged the record contains the Petitioner's business plan and generalized information related 
to business administration consulting services. However, the Director observed that "the record does 
not convey an understanding of how the [P]etitioner's proposed employment activities stand to have 
a broader impact on the field, rising to the level of national importance." The Director noted that the 
record does not establish whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor "has implications beyond the 
current company, business partners, alliances, and/or unidentified clients at a level sufficient to 
demonstrate the national importance of the endeavor." The Director also observed that the record does 
not establish how "the employment of seventeen workers, or even potentially, at the demonstrated rate 
of pay would have substantial positive effects in the community" or otherwise demonstrate substantial 
positive economic effects. Based on those and similar issues, the Director concluded the record does 
not establish whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance, as contemplated by the 
first Dhanasar prong. See id. The Director then determined that, although the record satisfies the 
second Dhanasar prong, it does not satisfy the third prong, of which all three must be met. See id. at 
888-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates information already in the record, including copying and pasting 
information from the Petitioner's business plan into the appeal brief The Petitioner also reasserts on 
appeal that the proposed endeavor will have national importance because it will benefit the Petitioner's 
business administration consulting services company's clients and customers, his company plans to 
employ 17 workers within the first five years of operations, and both his company and its clients and 
customers will "generate more profits, needing to hire more employees, pay higher taxes, and purchase 
more local goods and services." 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on 
"the speci fie endeavor that the [ non citizen] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential 
prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first 
prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or those with "significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
We first note that the documents in the record providing generalized information regarding business, 
business administration, business administration consulting services, and similar topics, are material 
to the issue of whether the proposed endeavor may have substantial merit, as required in part by the 
first Dhanasar prong. See id. However, generalized information in the record that does not address 
the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and how the specific endeavor may 
have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance are immaterial to that issue, as 
contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. Because such generalized information is immaterial to the 
issue of whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even 
3 
global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain manufacturing 
processes or medical advances, or significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, and because that issue is 
dispositive here, we need not address them further. See id. 
The record establishes that the proposed endeavor may benefit to varying degrees the Petitioner, his 
startup business administration consulting services company, its employees, and its potential clients 
and customers, operating at unspecified locations "at any part of the U.S." However, the record does 
not establish how the proposed endeavor of providing business administration consulting services to 
unspecified SMEs in "clothing, footwear, accessories, and related industries" may have national 
importance. Moreover, because the record does not further specify where, in particular, the 
Petitioner's company's potential clients and customers would be located, it does not establish which 
locations the Petitioner purports would receive substantial positive economic effects as a result of his 
proposed endeavor, undermining meaningful analysis of the issue. 
Neither the Petitioner's business plan nor the remainder of the record establish how the Petitioner's 
endeavor to provide business administration consulting services to small- and medium-sized clothing, 
footwear, and accessories enterprises may have national or even global implications within the field 
of business administration, business administration consulting services, apparel, retail, or any other 
particular field. For example, the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor would create 
national or even global implications within any particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances, as opposed to merely providing services 
similar to those already provided by other business administration consulting services companies. See 
id. 
In tum, neither the Petitioner's business plan nor the remainder of the record establish how employing 
1 7 workers, including the Petitioner, in the positions noted above, with annual wages ranging between 
$30,000 and $96,000 with certain scheduled increases, in some unspecified location broadly indicated 
"in Florida" demonstrates significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area. See id. For example, without 
establishing the location in Florida in which the potential employees would work, the record does not 
provide relevant context for the significance of employing an additional worker in the respective 
positions, or whether the corresponding wage may constitute a substantial positive economic effect in 
that locale somewhere in Florida. Relatedly, although the Petitioner discusses indirect jobs his 
proposed endeavor may create by virtue of his company providing business administration consulting 
services, the record also does not establish the locations in which he purports his endeavor would 
indirectly create jobs, the nature of the jobs that may be created, the wages that those workers would 
receive, and other information that may indicate whether those economic effects may be substantial in 
those uncertain areas. See id. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We 
reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. As noted 
above, we also reserve our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies second-preference 
4 
eligibility criteria. See section 203(b)(2) of the Act; see also INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; 
Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5