dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 31, 2024 In Re: 32373212 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a consultant, 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a waiver of the job offer requirement 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 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. 
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: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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. 
Id. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue 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. The first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework requires the Petitioner to establish the proposed endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance. The Director stated in the request for evidence (RFE) that 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 2 For the reasons discussed below, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner initially stated that she intends to "contribute to the 
development and sustainability of the small business sector in cities with low economic development. I 
will carry out this project through digital media, private consultations and training." She also stated she 
would "educate the entrepreneur financially and accountingly [sic] so that he can develop his maximum 
potential, feel empowered, confident, and secure when making decisions for his business. Orient him 
along the line to diversify his investment or expand it once he feels ready to start it." In response to the 
RFE, the Petitioner stated her proposed endeavor "is to contribute to the development and sustainability 
of the small business sector, especially in cities with low economic development, in line with national 
objectives that encourage the growth of small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) and promote the 
importance for entrepreneurs of financial and accounting education. I will continue to contribute to the 
field of financing and accounting by leveraging my extensive experience in managing cash flows, 
budgeting, tax projects, and financial accounting consulting to provide consultancies that will be carried 
out through digital media, training programs, and technical consultations. My work in furtherance ofmy 
proposed endeavor will also be disseminated throughout the field through participation in conferences 
and peer-reviewed publications." 
The record includes, but is not limited to, statements from the Petitioner, articles and industry reports 
about small businesses and financial advisors, letters of interest from potential clients, letters of 
recommendation, education records, certificates, a resume, employer letters, and immigration records. 
The Director listed the proposed endeavor and evidence submitted by the Petitioner. The Director 
mentioned that none of the articles and industry reports discuss the Petitioner, the proposed endeavor, 
2 The Director also found, in the denial decision, that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
We will not address whether the Petitioner has established whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit or whether 
she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor as the determination that the proposed endeavor lacks national 
importance is dispositive of the appeal. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
2 
or how the proposed endeavor many have national or global implications within a particular field. The 
Director stated that the recommendation letters did not support the Petitioner's national importance 
claim, rather they focused on the contributions she made to her employers. The Director mentioned 
that the Petititioner did not establish how one consultant would produce benefits rising to the level of 
national importance, trigger substantial positive economic impacts, or have significant potential to 
create jobs. The Director noted the Petitioner's reference to her background and qualifications and 
stated that these are related to the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Finally, the 
Director stated that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of the prospective endeavor's 
potential prospective impact, including broader implications, or national or global implications within 
the field; significant potential to employ U.S. workers; substantial economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed field; broad enhancement of societal welfare; or broad enhancement of 
cultural or artistic enrichment. Therefore, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish 
the proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that her statements and supporting documentation established her 
proposed endeavor has national importance, the Director failed to consider all the evidence related to 
national importance, and the Director committed an abuse of discretion in denying her case. The 
Petitioner states that it is not required for her proposed endeavor to have national or global implications, 
rather that is just one example of a proposed endeavor having national importance. Additionally, the 
Petitioner states that it is not necessary to meet each of the evidentiary examples of national importance, 
such as the potential to employ U.S. workers. Next, the Petitioner asserts that the Director imposed novel 
criteria in emphasizing that the proposed endeavor be national in scope instead of having national 
importance, and in finding she did not establish the proposed endeavor would have a broader impact in 
the field outside of her business. 
The record reflects that the Director reviewed the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and the supporting 
evidence, submitted initially and in response to the RFE, in correctly determining that the proposed 
endeavor does not have national importance. The Director did not state that the Petitioner is required to 
submit every type of specific evidence that the proposed endeavor has national importance, such as 
evidence of national or global implications and the potential to employ U.S. workers. Rather, the Director 
listed the types of evidence that may be submitted to establish that the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, and correctly found that the evidence submitted by the Petitioner did not establish this. The 
Director did not impose novel criteria in making the determination that her proposed endeavor does not 
have national importance. The Director referenced the relevant language from Dhanasar and listed the 
types of evidence that could establish national importance. 3 
The proposed endeavor claimed by the Petitioner involves helping grow small businesses, especially in 
cities with low economic development, and she previously asserted that bolstering the small business 
sector aligns with the national priority and the Biden-Harris Administration goals of fostering economic 
growth, job creation, and supporting entrepreneurs. She previously stated the U.S. economic system 
cannot run without small businesses due the number ofbusinesses, their contribution to the gross domestic 
3 The Petitioner claims the Director's comments about the letters ofrecommendation for her were misplaced. as they relate to 
the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We agree with her claim. The Petitioner did not previously assert 
that the letters of recommendation were evidence that her proposed endeavor has national importance. 
3 
product, their large number of employees, and their tax contributions. She initially submitted articles on 
how small businesses run the U.S. economy and the percentage of small businesses that fail, and 
information from the U.S. Small Business Administration website to support her national importance 
claim. In response to the RFE, she submitted government reports and articles about small businesses 
driving job growth, minorities having trouble obtaining loans, and the Biden-Harris Administration 
support for small businesses. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the 
national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" 
of her work. While the Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide consulting services to 
her future clients, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of her proposed 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, we conclude the 
Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her business 
and its clientele to impact her field, the consulting industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts that the articles and information referred to above demonstrate the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. However, the issue here is not the national importance of the 
field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; rather we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner claims that the evidence corroborates the substantial positive economic impact of the 
proposed endeavor. The Petitioner, however, has not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that her 
consulting business would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance. The 
record does not include any financial or employee projections for her business, along with a basis for 
such projections. 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 her proposed endeavor stands to offer 
broader implications in her field or to generate substantial positive economic effects in the region 
where her business will operate or in other parts of the United States. We note that while the Petitioner 
mentions that ventures focused on one geographic area may be considered to have national importance, 
the record does not establish where her business would be located. She has not presented evidence 
indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her undertaking would 
reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. 
The Petitioner has not established that she meets the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. Therefore, she 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 her eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar. See Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. at 25; see also L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. 
4 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5