dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21188272 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 10, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , a business analyst, 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 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but had not established 
that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. We agreed with the Director and dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. He has filed a motion to 
reconsider our decision. With the motion, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that he is eligible 
for a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the 
time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements 
and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In our December 2021 decision, we concluded that the Petitioner had not established the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor, and thus had not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest 
waiver under the first prong of the analytical framework set forth in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 We explained that the Petitioner had not shown the specific 
1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification , USCIS may, as matter of 
endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S . workers or otherwise offers 
substantial positive economic effects for our nation . We also determined that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficientl y extend beyon d his emplo yer(s) and/or 
clients to impact his industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance . In 
addition, we noted that the Petitioner's documentation did not show that the particular work he 
proposes to undertake offers original innovations that contribute to advancements in business analysis 
or otherwise has broader implicat ions for his field . For all these reasons , we concluded that the 
Petition er's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
On motion, the Petitioner contends that he has demonstrated the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor under the preponderance of evidence standard and that our appellate decision was in error 
because we imposed a "stricter standard of proof." With respect to the standard of proof in this matter , 
a petitioner must establish that he meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a 
preponderance of the evidence . Matter ofChawathe , 25 I& N Dec . 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010) . In other 
words, a petitioner must show that what he claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To 
determine whether a petitioner has met his 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. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). In our appellate 
decision , we analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed his evidence to evaluate whether 
he had demonstrated , by a preponderance of the evidence , that he meet s the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
The Petitioner asserts that we disregarded the "concrete projection of the benefits [the Petitioner] could 
offer the U.S." as set forth in his "Professional Plan & Statement" and his plans for "offering business 
consulting services to American companies." Regarding the Petitioner 's claims relating to the benefits 
he could offer our nation , he presented two "Professional Plan & Statement " documents dated 
December 2019 and February 2021. His December 2019 Professional Plan & Statement asserted : 
I intend to work in the U.S . as a Business Analyst with an in-depth knowledge of the 
Brazilian oil and gas, consumer products and real estate industries. More generally , I 
can offer business consulting management services , business intelligence and 
optimization strategies to U.S. companies in need of expert advice in operations and 
business management. Also , I can provide leadership in entrepreneurship , strategic 
planning and business management to help companies reach more customers, become 
more profitable , create more jobs and attain a greater market share . 
I will contribute my knowledge and experience to provide high-quality business 
management consulting services to companies in the U.S. This will allow them to 
develop better quality business operations in the U.S. 
discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates : (1) that the foreign nation al's propos ed endeavor 
has both substantial merit and national importance ; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advanc e the propo sed 
endeavor; and (3) 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. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91 , for elaboration on these three prong s. 
2 
In his February 2021 Professional Plan & Statement , the Petitioner stated: 
I plan ... to contribute to U.S. societal needs and economic prosperity through my role as 
an Executive. . . . I can offer business consulting management services, business 
intelligence and optimization strategies to U.S. companies in need of expert advice in 
operations and business management. Also, I can provide leadership in 
entrepreneurship , technology , strategic planning and business management to help 
companies reach more customers , become more profitable , create more jobs and attain 
a greater market share. 
I will . . . help American companies become more profitable , productive and 
sustainable. As an executive , I will contribute to commercial development , the creation 
of job s and projects that generate new wealth. 
The Petitioner argues on motion that his proposed endeavor stands "to generate substantial benefits to 
the United States," enhance "the national economy ," and produce "substantially positive effects ." In 
determining national importance , the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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 his work. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable business analysis and consulting 
services for his future U.S. employers and/or clients, he has not offered sufficient information and 
evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his propos ed endeavor rises to the level of 
national importance. 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 . Id. 
at 893. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond his prospective employer s or business clientele to impact his industry or the U.S. economy 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore , the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. 
regional or national economy resulting from his business endeavors would reach the level of"substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
In addition , the Petitioner maintains that we disregarded his business skills, experience , and expertise 
in the areas of "Sales, Marketing , and Business Administration ." The Petitioner's expertise , skills, 
and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework , which "shifts the 
3 
focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue before us is whether 
the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first 
prong. 
The Petitioner further contends that we overlooked "industry reports and articles emphasizing the 
severe shortage of qualified professionals like him in the United States." In our appellate decision, we 
explained that we were not persuaded by the Petitioner's arguments that his proposed endeavor has 
national importance due to the shortage of professionals. The Petitioner has not established that his 
proposed endeavor would impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage. Moreover, 
shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the 
labor certification process. 
The Petitioner's arguments on motion do not establish that we erred in concluding that he had not satisfied 
the "national importance" requirement ofDhanasar's first prong. The Petitioner therefore has not met 
the requirements for a motion to reconsider as he has not shown that we erred in our previous decision 
based on the record before us on appeal. In addition, the motion to reconsider does not establish that our 
dismissal of his appeal was based on an incorrect application oflaw, regulation, or USCIS policy. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that we erred as a matter oflaw or USCIS policy in dismissing his appeal. 
Consequently, we have no basis for reconsideration of our appellate decision. The Petitioner's appeal 
therefore remains dismissed, and his underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4