dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Coaching

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 04, 2024 In Re: 28879742 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of business coaching, 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 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 although the 
Petitioner established her eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, the 
record did not establish that she is eligible for, and otherwise merits as a matter of discretion, a 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 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 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 as an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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 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: 
• 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 Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined 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. The Proposed Endeavor 
The record reflects that the Petitioner earned the foreign equivalent of a master's degree in health 
education in 2007 and registered an individual entrepreneur business in Russia in 2009. She indicates 
that, prior to relocating to the United States in 2021, she provided event management services for 
individual and corporate clients through her business and, more recently, has included "organizational, 
motivational and empowerment development training" as part of her service offerings. The Petitioner 
stated that she launched her first online course targeting Russian women in July 2020 with the aim of 
sharing her "knowledge and findings concerning motivation and empowerment." 
In a statement submitted at the time of filing in February 2022, the Petitioner indicated she will "seek 
employment as an independent business owner with the endeavor of providing coaching services for 
personal and business development in the United States, with a focus on female empowerment." In 
this regard, she noted that she will "farther develop and market [her] developed methodologies and 
professional services in the United States with the goal of convincing more women there to take foll 
control of their lives and to engage in the economy." 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a business plan and certificate of 
incorporation for I l a New York company she incorporated in D 2022. She 
indicates that she will act as the company's sole owner, chief executive officer and lead coach. The 
business plan indicates that the company will offer online and in-person courses intended to develop 
women's "professional and leadership skills, individual traits and soft skills," initially targeting clients 
in New York with plans to expand operations to seven additional states within five years. The business 
plan identifies four training courses that will be offered to customers, 2 and notes that the company will 
provide event management services as an additional revenue stream. 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 The courses are titled "Disclosure of Women's Confidence and Potential," "Creating the Perfect Image of Yourself," 
"Leadership Development," and "Event Management." 
2 
The Director's decision discusses why the Petitioner did not establish that she qualifies under either 
the second or third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates the 
importance of her proposed endeavor and her qualifications to operate the U.S. company. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director's decision does not provide an analysis of evidence submitted under the first prong of 
the Dhanasar framework. The decision refers to the Petitioner's business plan and states that the "the 
submitted evidence establishes the substantial merit and national importance of the proposed 
endeavor." However, in evaluating whether the Petitioner established that she is well-positioned to 
advance the endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong, the Director appears to conclude that the 
business plan did not, in fact, sufficiently demonstrate a potential prospective impact that satisfies the 
national importance element of the first prong. For example, the Director observed that although the 
business plan outlines online training courses the Petitioner intends to offer in the United States, "no 
evidence was provided regarding ... the potential economic or social impact of these courses for the 
[United States]." As the Director's determination concerning the first prong is unclear, and because 
we make a definitive finding on the second prong below, we will reserve this issue. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong in the Dhanasar framework shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the 
individual. To determine whether an individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, 
we consider factors including, but not limited to: their 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. Id. at 890. 
In applying these factors to the evidence and claims presented, the Director explained in detail why 
the Petitioner 's evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that she is well-positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief in which she reasserts her qualifications 
based on her academic credentials and her employment experience. While the Petitioner "respectfully 
contends that the decision ... to deny this Form 1-140 petition was in error," she does not address the 
specific evidentiary deficiencies discussed in the Director's decision or articulate how the Director 
erred. 3 Rather, she maintains that she "clearly established the ability to carry forward the proposed 
endeavor," and summarizes the previously submitted evidence. For the reasons provided below, we 
3 An appeal must specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .3(a)(l)(v). 
3 
agree with the Director's determination that the record does not establish the Petitioner is well­
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence 
individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
In determining that the Petitioner did not meet her burden to satisfy this prong, the Director 
acknowledged her education, her registration as an individual entrepreneur in Russia, and reference 
letters from clients and other business contacts which describe ten projects or activities she completed 
between 2016 and 2021. The Director found this evidence established "some success in event 
organizing and facilitating trainings," but noted there was no evidence that the events and activities 
were provided through the Petitioner's business. As noted, the record documents that the Petitioner 
registered an "individual entrepreneur" business in Russia in 2009; however, the record contains little 
evidence regarding her business in Russia and its ongoing operations beyond her own statements. She 
did not provide supporting evidence of the scope and size of the company, such as its income, number 
of employees, organizational structure, and geographic reach in support of her claim that she has a 
record of success operating a business similar to her proposed endeavor in the United States. The 
Petitioner's assertion that she is "a known expert service-provider" is not sufficient. As observed by 
the Director, the Petitioner's reference letters, while highly complimentary of the services she 
performed, provide limited insight into her past employment because they address only ten short-term 
events that occurred over a five-year period. 
The Director further explained why the evidence submitted at the time of filing and in response to the 
RFE did not support the Petitioner's claim that she has a record of success in business coaching 
specifically aimed at empowering and motivating women, which is the primary focus of the proposed 
endeavor in the United States. The reference letters confirm that she provided a three-day motivational 
training for female employees of a child development center in 2019 and a four-day "training in the 
art of elocution" for participants in a beauty contest in 2020. But, as noted by the Director, the 
evidence did not support a finding that her work has largely been focused on delivery of coaching and 
training programs for empowerment of women in the workplace. 
The Director's decision also acknowledges the Petitioner's claim that she has developed "personal 
methods for empowerment of women in business" which she has shared through a social media 
platform and through the launch of a three-module online course. As noted, the Petitioner states that 
she will "further develop and market [her] developed methodologies and professional services in the 
United States." However, the Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence demonstrating the 
existence of the methodology she claims she developed or the associated social media group and 
training course that she purportedly based on her methodology. Further, as discussed above, the record 
contains limited evidence demonstrating the scope of the professional services she has provided in the 
past. Accordingly, we agree that the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate her record of success 
operating a business similar to the proposed endeavor described in the record. 
The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence of progress 
towards achieving her proposed endeavor, and evidence demonstrating the interest of potential 
customers, users, investors or other relevant entities or individuals. The submitted business plan does 
not identify the anticipated start up costs for the Petitioner's new business or identify or document the 
amount or source of funding needed to commence operations. The Petitioner indicates that she will 
be the sole owner but has not documented her personal finances to demonstrate that she has the means 
4 
for financial support of the new business through her own investments, savings, or other assets, or that 
she anticipates receiving financial support from any other investors. In addition, we note that certain 
financial projections outlined in the business plan are not adequately supported. For example, the 
Petitioner indicates that her company will offer its services in eight U.S. states within five years, but 
the operating expenses projected in the business plan show no anticipated increases in annual rent 
expenses consistent with the planned multi-state operations and do not support the stated expansion 
plan. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met her burden to show that she has a viable model or 
plan for future activities and that she is financially well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided letters of interest from two U.S. businesses. 
However, the Director noted that the authors of the letters do not indicate an intent to purchase any 
specific training or services outlined in the Petitioner's business plan and are insufficient to establish 
a significant level of demonstrated interest in the proposed endeavor. We agree with the Director's 
determination that these letters demonstrate limited interest in the Petitioner's business from two 
potential customers; they do not demonstrate that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her 
proposed endeavor of providing business coaching and development training aimed at empowering 
women in the workplace. 
Finally, the Director's decision reflects consideration of an expert opinion letter submitted in support 
of the petition. The Director explained why the evidence did not demonstrate that she is well­
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and support her projections of future work as described 
in the business plan. As noted, the Petitioner has not contested any of the Director's specific findings 
on appeal and instead makes a blanket claim that the Director denied the petition in error. Based on 
the evidence of record and the foregoing analysis, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she is well 
positioned to advance her endeavor under the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Therefore, 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 her remaining arguments concerning her eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-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 established that she meets the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she 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. 
5