dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 5, 2024 In Re: 29832827 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur who, along with his spouse, owns 
a business registered in Florida, seeks second preference immigrant classification (EB-2) 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) (2022). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3 (2022). 
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 l&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 an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest 
waiver petitions. Matter ofDhanasar 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 Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F. 3d 868, 870-76 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national 
interest waiver to be discretionary in nature); see also Flores v. Garland, 72 F. 4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining 
I 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-91. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record shows that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. Specifically, on appeal, the Petitioner states that he is "a professional with an advanced degree 
in finance and international business" and offers evidence in support of this claim. The remaining 
issue to be determined is whether he has established that waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and 
thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit but 
does not satisfy the national importance element under Matter of Dhanasar' s first prong. If the 
Petitioner does not meet the first prong, the record is dispositive in finding that he is ineligible for the 
national interest waiver, and we need not address the second and third prongs under the Matter of 
Dhanasar framework. 
As explained in the Director's decision, the first prong - substantial merit and national importance -
focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We noted in Matter ofDhanasar that "we look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor and 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his proposed endeavor has national importance in the field of 
business and entrepreneurship and thus satisfies the first prong under Matter ofDhanasar. He states 
that his proposed endeavor involves working as the chief executive officer for his company, 
I which provides "financial and international business consulting 
services to help small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) in different industries do business 
successfully locally and especially to penetrate international markets." According to a June 2022 
business plan in the record, the Petitioner "endeavors to contribute to the U.S. economy by providing 
expert consulting services to [SMEs] in the U.S., helping them increase their sales, competitiveness, 
and performance, and successfully enter international markets." Page 6 of the business plan claims 
that his company, formed in 2021, "started its operations by servicing clients in Florida," and that 
beginning from year 2 of its operation, it will "start targeting clients in Georgia," "provide services 
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 
throughout New York," as well as "in other regions of the United States, such as Texas and California," 
and then it will "operat[e] throughout the country." The Petitioner has presented letters of 
recommendation from individuals, discussing his educational background in law and business, and his 
professional experience in business management, operation, and entrepreneurship, as well as letters of 
intents, stating the intention of certain businesses to retain his company's services involving export 
operations. 
In addition, the Petitioner claims on appeal that his proposed endeavor will include "providing [ single 
mothers] with the basic tools necessary to bring their business ideas to reality with a free educational 
program that [his company] will develop [with] some non-profit organizations." The record includes 
a March 2023 letter from a church in Florida, indicating that the Petitioner's company had approached 
the organization to "develop a free training program [ on entrepreneurship] for single mothers." 
The Director reviewed the evidence on record and concluded that it "does not sufficiently establish 
that the [Petitioner]'s proposed endeavor is of national importance." The Director noted that the 
evidence fails to confirm that the nature of his proposed endeavor "extend beyond his company to 
impact the field more broadly" or that the "level of employment will have the potential to provide 
substantial positive economic effects to the region his business is located or to the nation." See Matter 
ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor has national importance because his 
company "is specifically focused on supporting small and medium-sized businesses" and because his 
company plans to provide training to single mothers. He also references recommendation letters, and 
other materials - including those relating to awards, certificates, and trademarks - that confirm his 
educational and professional background. This evidence relates to the issue of whether he is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-91. As 
discussed above, however, the first prong under Matter of Dhanasar focuses on the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, not his qualifications to advance the proposed 
endeavor. Thus, statements and evidence relating to his qualifications do not establish that his 
proposed endeavor satisfies the first prong. 
Moreover, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies 
the first prong under Matter ofDhanasar. Specifically, the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed 
endeavor has national importance. See id., 26 I&N Dec. at 889. While we acknowledge that his 
customers and clients might benefit from his consultant services and free training program, the record 
is insufficient to show that such benefit rises to the level of national importance or will likely impact 
the field of business and entrepreneurship more broadly. Although the letters of intent specify that the 
Petitioner's company will provide consultant services to import/export businesses, the record lacks 
evidence showing how such services will likely impact the field nationally or how the potential 
prospective impact has national implications within the field. Similarly, the Petitioner has not 
established how his proposed free training program for single mothers - which he claims on appeal 
will "allow [the individuals] to move forward with their families and hope for a better future" - will 
likely have a national level impact in the field of business and entrepreneurship. 
Additionally, although the Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor will result in job creation in 
the U.S., he has not presented sufficient evidence showing that it has "significant potential to employ 
3 
U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area." See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The Petitioner offers his business's 
2022 tax filings, which does not indicate that the business had pay any salaries or wages to, or had 
hired, any employees. The Petitioner indicates that his company paid $89,000 in 2022 to a business 
that "provided external personnel to comply with the execution of contracts" for his company, but he 
has not specified how many jobs were created or shown that the level of job creation confirms the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
Additionally, pages 44 through 46 of the business plan claim that the Petitioner's business would hire 
11 "in-house employees," and allege that the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) 
multipliers for "Management Consulting Services Industry in Florida" project "a final-demand impact 
in employment equivalent to 214 jobs in Year 5" of his business's operation. The Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated that RIMS II' s broad category of "Management Consulting Services 
Industry in Florida" properly captures the potential impact of his proposed endeavor, which involves 
providing consulting services to import/export businesses and free training to single mothers. He has 
therefore not shown that general statistics on a broad category of economic activities confirms the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. In short, the record is insufficient to establish the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor based on its potential job creation or impact on the U.S. 
economy. 
On appeal, the Petitioner references reports and articles on the importance of SMEs and the 
import/export industry to the U.S. economy. We acknowledge that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
involves providing services to SMEs and free training to single mothers and has substantial merit. 
However, merely working in an important area of the economy is insufficient to establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. 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." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In this case, for 
the reasons we have discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the requisite national importance. 
Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of the Matter of Dhanasar 
precedent decision and he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the 
identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Matter ofDhanasar framework. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on 
appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Matter ofDhanasar 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. 
4