dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 4, 2024 In Re: 32463523 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, whose proposed endeavor is to provide consulting, advising, and training services to 
small and medium-sized software companies and entrepreneurs, 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's proposed endeavor had prospective national importance, that he was 
well-positioned to carry out the proposed endeavor, or that a waiver of the labor certification 
requirement was beneficial. 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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," we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions 
in the precedent decision Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states 
that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion,1 grant anational 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
• 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. 
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 arange 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 l&N Dec. at 889. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are 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; amodel 
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. 
The third prong requires a 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, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the individual's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer 
or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are 
available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national 
interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. 
In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish 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. 
Id. at 890-91. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner intends to continue his career in the United States as an entrepreneur in the field of 
business and financial consulting. He plans to leverage his training and over 20 years of experience 
and services in the business and finance industry to operate as an entrepreneur targeting consulting for 
entrepreneurs and small or medium-sized companies "who want to operate Latin American businesses 
in the United States correctly and who want expert support and advice and astrong network of service 
providers." He notes that the "firm's service line, encompassing business consulting and advisory to 
dispatcher service analysis, is meticulously designed to track and manage business processes, partner 
relationships, transport logistics, educational endeavors, adoption processes, and strategies for 
business recovery and market growth." 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
The Director found the Petitioner qualified for underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. However, the Director determined that the Petitioner had 
not met the Dhanasar requirements for a waiver of a job offer and labor certification from a U.S. 
employer. Specifically, the Director concluded that the national importance of the endeavor had not 
been demonstrated under prong one, that the Petitioner was not well-positioned to carry out the 
endeavor under prong two, and that the Petitioner had not shown that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement would be beneficial as required by prong three. We agree the Petitioner has not 
established the national importance of the endeavor, as required under the first prong of Dhanasar. 
A The Petitioner Has Hot Demonstrated that His Endeavor Has National Importance 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that in denying the petition, the Director imposed a novel standard 
and evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations," but does not point to any 
specific examples. The Petitioner further alleges that the Director "did not apply the proper standard 
of proof in this case, instead imposing a stricter standard ... to the detriment of the appellant." Except 
where a different standard is specified by law, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of 
proof governing immigration benefit requests. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 375; see also 
Matter of Martinez, 21 l&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); Matter of Sao Hoo, 11 l&N Dec. 151, 152 
(BIA 1965). Accordingly, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing 
national interest waiver petitions. See generally 1 USCIS Policy Manual, E.4(B), 
https://www.uscis .gov/policy-manual. While the Petitioner asserts that he has provided evidence 
sufficient to demonstrate his eligibility for a national interest waiver, he does not further explain or 
identify a specific instance in which the Director applied a standard of proof other than the 
preponderance of the evidence in denying the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also contends that he satisfied prong one of the Dhanasar framework because 
the Director did not properly weigh the evidence. He highlights his history of success in similar 
endeavors, and notes that the proposed endeavor could broadly impact the business and financial 
consulting industry. He contends that the Director failed to adequately consider his resume, 
professional plan, work experience and credentials, letters of support, and the supporting "Industry 
Reports and Articles" outlining "how immigrant entrepreneurs, such as [the Petitioner] , play a vital 
role in the recovery of the U.S. economy and directly contribute to the country's ongoing economic 
growth." The Petitioner argues that his "expertise and skill set will support U.S. businesses in 
developing a competitive edge in both national and international markets - this will push the nation to 
achieve whole new layers of productivity, affecting economic and commercial interests in the business 
and financial consulting industry." (Emphasis in the original). 
In support of these contentions, the Petitioner has submitted evidence including, but not limited to: his 
resume, a professional plan, documentation regarding his experience, letters of recommendation, and 
"Industry Report and Articles" discussing the "vita l role" immigrant entrepreneurs play "in the 
recovery of the U.S. economy and directly contribute to the country's ongoing economic growth," 
The Petitioner also claims he has documented an "impending shortage of business professionals in the 
United States." 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of the Dhanasar framework requiring a proposed 
endeavor to be of national importance. Although the Petitioner stresses that the proposed endeavor is 
3 
likely to be successful given his extensive work experience, and will create employment opportunities, 
these factors are not sufficient to show national importance. 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. Although the evidence reflects the Petitioner's 
intention to provide valuable services for his clients, he has not offered sufficient information and 
evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his 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 find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact the business and financial consulting industry or 
otherwise impact economic initiatives more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance.2 
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. Specifically, he has not shown that his company's future staffing levels, business activity, 
associated tax revenue, and financial initiatives stand to provide substantial economic benefits in 
Florida, where the proposed endeavor is intended to be based, or in the United States generally. While 
the professional plan indicates that the company has growth potential, it does not demonstrate that 
benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach 
the level of"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, 
although the Petitioner asserts that the company will hire "their first employee ... as soon as revenue 
allows," he has not offered sufficient evidence that he would employ a significant population of 
workers, or that the endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit 
through employment levels, business activity , or tax revenue. He also has not shown that the business 
and services performed by the company would represent a significant share of the business and 
financial consulting services market, even among the endeavor's target audience of "entrepreneurs 
and small or medium-sized companies who want to operate Latin American businesses in the [United 
States]." Accordingly , the Petitioner 's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
The Petitioner has also not demonstrated that the Director violated USCIS policy or erroneously 
evaluated the case. The Petitioner takes issue with the Director's weighing of the evidence, but he has 
not provided details of which "novel standard" the Director purportedly applied. Similarly, although 
he alleges that the Director failed to correctly consider various pieces of evidence, he has not provided 
details of how the Director's analysis misevaluated this evidence. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. We reserve opinion on whether the Petitioner 
could satisfy the second and third prongs to qualify for a national interest waiver. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
2 The Petitioner has provided, and we have reviewed, a substantial number of documents outlining the importance of the 
business and financial services sector to the national and global economy. However, the Dhanasar framework instructs 
us to evaluate the impact of the specific proposed endeavor, rather than the field or industry generally. Id. at 889. 
4 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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 the applicant did 
not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that the proposed endeavor is of national importance. Because he has 
not met the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that he has not established he 
is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5