dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 01, 2024 In Re: 32478981 
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 either a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 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, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. 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 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 I&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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the requested EB-2 immigrant classification 
as an advanced degree professional, but did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under 
the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons set forth below, we agree that the Petitioner has not met the 
Dhanasar framework and dismiss the appeal. 
The first Dhanasar 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. In Dhanasar we said that, in 
determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of 
the proposed endeavor, noting 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 
The Petitioner initially indicated that she intended to work as a general and operations manager in the 
United States to advise U.S. companies across a variety of industries "on how to properly plan, direct, 
and coordinate the operations of public and private sector organizations." She asserted that her 
knowledge and background would be especially helpful for U.S. companies doing business or planning 
to conduct business internationally. In support, the Petitioner provided a personal statement, letters of 
recommendation, industry articles discussing various topics including the field of general and 
operations managers and the importance of operations managers and innovation to business growth, 
as well as an offer letter from a U.S. consulting company indicating its intent to employ her as its 
director of operations.2 
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). 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
2 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), which requested clarification of the proposed 
endeavor and its national importance, the Petitioner stated her intention was to operate her own 
consulting company, ___________ to offer "international relations, foreign trade, 
and business development consulting [services] to U.S. companies." In support, she submitted a 
business plan detailing her company's services and her plans to create "value chains between Turkey 
and the U[nited] S[tates]" by providing business consultancy for Turkish companies planning to 
establish operations in the United States and U.S. companies establishing operations in Turkey. 
Additionally, she planned to offer trade events to connect U.S. companiesand Turkish companies. 
According to the business plan, the company would be based in Florida and the Petitioner 
would serve as the company's chief executive officer and head consultant. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's business plan and RFE response constituted an 
impermissible material change to her proposed endeavor. And, citing to Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N 
Dec.169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998), the Director informed the Petitioner that she could not make 
material changes to a petition to conform to USCIS requirements. As a petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing a benefit request, 3 the Director did not consider the business plan as 
probative evidence establishing the Petitioner's eligibility under the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
In addressing the other evidence in the record, including the numerous industry reports, the Director 
concluded the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of working as a general and operations manager was 
not nationally important because it would not result in broader implications to her field or result in the 
economic benefits claimed. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's determination regarding the material change 
of her endeavor, and instead generally asserts that the Director did not apply the correct standard of 
proof and "imposed novel substantive and evidentiary requirements" without pointing to specific 
examples of how the Director imposed these requirements or explaining the ways in which the Director 
erred in their analysis of the evidence. Notably, the Petitioner's appellate brief does not specifically 
address the Director's analysis regarding the national importance of her proposed endeavor, and 
although Petitioner's appellate brief contains a quote which she purports is from the Director's 
decision, the quoted language does not appear in the Director's decision. Instead, the Petitioner 
generally reiterates the same arguments made in her response to the Director's RFE. 
As a preliminary matter, because the Petitioner has not contested the Director's conclusion regarding 
the material change to her endeavor, we deem this matter waived. 4 As such, we will not consider the 
Petitioner's business plan on appeal and will focus our analysis on her statements and evidence 
regarding her initial proposed endeavor of working as general and operations manager for various U.S. 
companies. We nevertheless note that the Petitioner's business plan submitted in response to the RFE, 
even if considered, does not establish the national importance of her endeavor as any benefits derived 
from the Petitioner's services would be limited to her immediate customers rather than resulting in 
broader implications to the field. Moreover, while the Petitioner's business plan includes employment 
and financial projections, the business plan provides little explanation and objective basis of these 
3 Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
4 An issue not raised on appeal is waived. See. e.g., Matter o(O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter 
ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657,657, n.2 (BIA 2012)); Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) 
( concluding that when an appellant fails to address or offer an argument on an issue, that issue is waived). 
3 
projections and the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain and support with documentary evidence how 
the employment and revenue projections would impact the area of intended operations. 
And with respect to the standard of proof in this matter, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's 
assertion that the Director applied a higher standard of proof. The standard of proof in this proceeding 
is preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner must show that what is claimed is "more 
likely than not" or "probably" trne. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 75-76. To determine 
whether a petitioner has met the 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.; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). As stated, the Petitioner did not identify 
how the Director applied a higher standard of proof, but upon review, we conclude the Director 
properly analyzed the relevant evidence in the record under the preponderance of the evidence 
standard. 
Upon de novo review, we disagree with the Director's conclusion regarding the substantial merit of 
the Petitioner's endeavor and withdraw this determination. The record contains sufficient 
documentation, including industry reports establishing the importance of the general and operations 
management field as well as the importance of operational management to the success of businesses 
in the United States. As such, we conclude that the record supports the substantial merit of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. However, while the Petitioner has established that the proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit, we agree with the Director that the record does not demonstrate its 
national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that her education and professional experience will benefit U.S. 
companies needing her specialized skills in operations and management. Similar assertions are also 
made throughout the record in the recommendation letters and the expert opinion letter submitted 
before the Director, but a petitioner's expertise and record of success 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 the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor. While the expert opinion letter discusses the Petitioner's 
experience at length, , the letter does not address the broader implications that would be directly 
attributable the Petitioner's work, and therefore is not relevant, probative, and credible evidence 
establishing the national importance of her endeavor. 5 Similarly, the letters of recommendation do 
not analyze the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or offer evidence of its impact, beyond 
commenting on her expertise. 
And, while the Petitioner claims that her work will ensure the United States stays competitive and will 
produce income for the U.S. economy, she supports these assertions by primarily relying on the 
5 USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional organizations, or other 
sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a noncitizen's eligibility. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter 
ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445,460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony based 
on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). Here, much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked 
relevance with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.) 
4 
industry articles in the record discussing the field and the impact of foreign-born entrepreneurs in 
driving innovation in the United States, but this evidence is also unpersuasive. When evaluating the 
national importance of a proposed endeavor we focus on the broader implications of "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake" rather than the industry or the collective 
impact of entrepreneurs. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. As the research cited in the Petitioner 
appellate brief discussing the economic impact of immigrant entrepreneurs does not discuss the 
Petitioner nor her plans to work as a general and operations manager, they are do not establish the 
national importance of her endeavor. 
Finally, although the Petitioner's statements in the record reflect her intention to generally provide 
services to direct and coordinate the operations of various companies, leading to substantial business 
growth, we agree with the Director that the record does not sufficiently show that the benefits resulting 
from the Petitioner's work would impact the industry beyond the immediate benefits provided to her 
potential employers or customers. 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 the field more 
broadly. Id. at 893. Similarly, the Petitioner's general assertions of improving company's operations 
do not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently impact the field more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Further, she has not demonstrated that her 
specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer 
substantial positive economic effects. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the substantial merit or national 
importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent 
decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs as well as a determination as to whether the Petitioner has met 
the requirements ofEB-2 classification. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5