dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Advisory

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 15, 2024 In Re: 31655823 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a legal and business advisor, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
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 classification. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(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 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 of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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 their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 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 qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
In his initial personal statement, the Petitioner indicated that his proposed endeavor will "assist natural 
disaster-affected community [sic] through the provision of technical and mechanical support to first 
responders and local businesses, thus contributing to post-hurricane reconstrnction efforts while 
promoting social resilience and economic progress." The business plan, submitted in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), clarified that the proposed endeavor was "an industrial 
hydraulic hose and fitting manufacturer that will offer associated products and maintenance and 
installation services." 
The Director concluded that, although the Petitioner had established the substantial merit of his 
proposed endeavor, he had not demonstrated its national importance, that he is well-positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor, and that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to 
waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director abused their discretion in failing to address all evidence, 
citing Buletini v. INS, 850 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994) in support. However, the court in Buletini 
did not suggest that USCIS abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each 
piece of evidence. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made 
adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor 
is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. See Kazemzadeh v. 
US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Tan v. US. Atty. Gen. 446 F.3d 1369, 
1374 (11th Cir. 2006)); see also Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013); Casalena 
v. US INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). We conclude the record reflects the Director's 
consideration of all evidence in the totality even though the Director's decision did not address each 
piece of evidence individually. 
The Petitioner further contends on appeal that, but for this abuse of discretion, the record establishes, 
by a preponderance of the evidence, the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Upon de novo 
review, we cannot conclude that it does so. We note that, while we do not discuss all of the evidence 
in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered the record in its entirety. 
The first prong of Dhanasar, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's 
merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, sc1ence, 
2 
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. 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. at 889. We determined in Dhanasar 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. Id. at 893. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not sufficiently consider industry and Federal 
reports in determining that the proposed endeavor was of national importance. The industry reports 
discuss the projected demand for services to be provided by the proposed endeavor, and the importance 
of the industry generally. The U.S. government reports, such as one published by the White House 
entitled "Building a Better America: A Guidebook to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for State, 
Local, Tribal, and Territorial Governments, and Other Partners," and one produced by the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, generally discuss the importance of infrastructure maintenance in 
the United States and provide guidance on funding opportunities. However, when determining 
whether a proposed endeavor would have substantial merit or national importance, the relevant 
question is not the importance of the industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, but the 
specific impact of that proposed endeavor. Id. at 889-890. The Petitioner does not offer evidence to 
demonstrate that the U.S. government has offered the proposed endeavor funding or taken a direct 
interest in it in a manner that may reflect its national importance. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence sufficient to "establish the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor from an economic ... standpoint" as he asserts that he has done on appeal. 
In his amended personal statement, the Petitioner explained that the proposed endeavor "focuses on 
providing specialized hydraulic hose repair services to support critical industries in the city of 
!Florida." He stated that the proposed endeavor will promote jobs for "people living in 
the city of The June 2023 business plan in the record below indicated that the Petitioner 
formed a limited liability corporation for this proposed endeavor in 2021, that the Petitioner had 
invested $600,000 into the endeavor, and that it was operating with three full time positions. 2 The 
business plan anticipated that the proposed endeavor would increase staffing to four in 2023, ten in 
2024, 11 in 2025, and 12 in 2026; it also anticipated that the proposed endeavor would generate 
revenues totaling $756,984 in 2022, $1,948,440 in 2023, $2,631,980 in 2024, and $3,668,520 in 2025. 
Here the Petitioner has not offered evidence to demonstrate that his company's future staffing levels 
or revenues stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida. While the projected jobs and 
revenues forecast for the proposed endeavor indicate that the company has growth potential, it does not 
demonstrate 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. Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
2 We note that the record lacks business formation documents for this proposed endeavor, documentation of employment , 
or evidence of this investment. 
3 
In his amended personal statement, the Petitioner also explained that "as a reliable hydraulic hose 
repair service provider [he] will contribute to maintaining and optimizing the national infrastructure 
in various industries," allowing his clientele to use their resources "in a more sustainable way, 
generating a positive economic impact at the national level." In this statement the Petitioner also noted 
that the proposed endeavor "directly supports the efficient operation of supply chains and promotes 
higher standards across the country." The Petitioner, however, has not provided evidence demonstrating 
that his proposed business activities would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national 
importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad 
impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims. Furthermore, while any basic 
economic activity has the potential to positively affect the economy to some degree, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated how the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor stands to offer 
broader implications in his industry or to generate substantial positive economic effects in the United 
States as a whole. 
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. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments 
concerning her eligibility under the second and third prongs of 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 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4