dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18452660 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 2, 2021 
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 theN ebraska 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts he is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 
2010). Upon de nova 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasarstates that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job off er and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national impmiance, 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. 
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. 
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 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOl). 
2 See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936F.3d 868, 2019 WL4051593 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a na tionalinterest waiver to be discretionaiyin nature). 
2 
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 ce1iification. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analysis. As stated in the initial filing, he proposes 
"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." We note that in response to the Director's request for 
evidence, the Petitioner indicated that he '"plan[s] to contribute to U.S. societal needs and economic 
prosperity through [his] role as an Executive" and listed his current position as chief executive officer of 
I I a flower company. As this business opportunity materialized after the filing of the 
petition, and therefore would not establish the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing, it does not 
assist the Petitioner in establishing the national impmiance of the proposed endeavor. 4 
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. We further indicated 
that "we look for broader implications" oftheproposedendeavorand that"[a]n undertaking may have 
national impmiance 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again relies, in part, on his experience and his prior career accomplishments 
to establish the national impmiance of his proposed endeavor. However, the Petitioner's expertise 
and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar' s second prong, which 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national importance 
of his proposed work. 5 
The Petitioner also makes a variety of general and unsupported claims, such as his "proposed endeavor 
is nationally important because of the ripple effects it generates upon the U.S. business industry, which 
is experiencing a growing shortage of professionals and an intensive demand for analytical services," 
and that it "will contribute to enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. companies within the consumer 
goods industry." The claimed "ripple effects," however, are not well explained or documented in the 
3 SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs. 
4 The Petitioner has the burden ofproofto establish eligibility for the requested benefit at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ I 03.2(b)(l); see also MatterofKatigbak, 14 I&NDec.45, 49 (Comm'r 1971) (providing that "Congress did not intend 
that a petition that was properly denied because the beneficiary wasnotatthattimequalified be subsequently approved at 
a future date when the beneficiary may become qualified under a new set of facts."). 
5 SccMatterofChawathe,25 I&NDec. 369, 376(BIA2010)andMattcrofE-M-,20 I&NDec. 77 (BIA 1989), 
3 
record. Similarly , the Petitioner has not connected the proposed endeavor's activities for his 
employer(s) orclient(s) to any specific increase in the competitiveness of U.S. companies. We are 
also not persuaded by the Petitioner's arguments that the 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. Further , shortages of qualified 
workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
Here , beyond such general statements , the Petitioner does not offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate 
that the prospective impact of his proposed endea vor rises to the level of 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 evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
directly attributable to his future wo:tk, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of"substantial positive economic 
effects " contemplated by Dhana sar. Id. at 890 . 
In Dhana sar, 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 , we 
similarly find the record doe s not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to suffi ciently 
extend beyond his employer( s) and /or clients to impact the industry more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Nor has he documented that the particular work he proposes 
to undertake offers original innovations that contribute to advancements in business analysis or 
otherwise has broader implic ations for his field. For all these reasons, the Petitione r's proposed wo:tk 
doe s not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
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. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding the remaining issues. 
See INS v. Bagama sbad, 429 U.S. 24 , 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the deci sion of which is unnecessary to the results they reach") ; see also Matt er 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 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framewo:tk. Accordingly, 
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 reasons . 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4