dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 26, 2024 In Re: 32384147 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur with a background in accounting, 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 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 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 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: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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. 
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. 
Id.. 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; 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. 
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 is an entrepreneur with a background in accounting. He intends to open and operate a 
business and managerial consulting firm. He notes that he will assist U.S. companies to make sound 
financial decisions, offer advice to streamline their operations and improve sales, and help to improve 
overall profitability. 
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 while the record established that the proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit, the national importance of the endeavor had not been demonstrated 
under prong one. The Director also determined 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 
2 
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 Not Demonstrated that His Endeavor Has National Importance 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he submitted a detailed business plan outlining the number of 
proposed employees and revenue projections over a five-year period. He notes that in areas of lower 
income, providing jobs is a means of increasing the general economy of the area. He contends that 
the Director found the evidence to be insufficient because the supporting evidence was not carefully 
reviewed. He notes that he will be providing services to companies of varying sizes nationwide, which 
will in turn have a large impact on the economy; the work he will do to expand businesses will have a 
substantial economic impact by providing higher wages and boosting domestic and international 
markets. He highlights his acceptance into aI -area business incubator program. In addition 
to contesting the Director's analysis ofDhanasar' s first prong, the Petitioner makes various additional 
arguments that he has satisfied the criteria in prongs two and three. 
In support of these contentions, the Petitioner has submitted evidence including, but not limited to: a 
business plan detailing his intention to operate a business consulting firm; company formation and 
operating agreements; letters of support from business associates; diplomas and certificates; 
employment history; an expert opinion regarding his eligibility for a national interest waiver; and 
articles providing context and background on the consulting industry and the impact of business 
growth on the economy.2 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of the Dhanasar framework requiring a proposed 
endeavor to be of national importance. Although the Petitioner highlights his lengthy history of 
entrepreneurial ventures and argues that his efforts will have a broader impact on the economy via his 
client's businesses, these factors are insufficient to demonstrate 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. The Petitioner asserts that the 
improvements he will make within companies will result in increased profitability; this in tum will 
cause the companies to raise wages and hire workers and will therefore improve the economy. 
However, the cited impact is speculative and is not supported by specific forecasts ofjobs that will be 
created because of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. A lthough 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. 
The Petitioner also highlights that his abilities in business management will have a positive effect on 
the American workforce, as he will improve business acumen and ability in the individuals for whom 
he will consult. However, 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 
2 We are aware of and have reviewed letters of support submitted on appeal that detail the Petitioner's prospective impact, 
past work, and acceptance into an entrepreneurial incubator program. However, these letters were written in late 2023. 
As they do not contain details of when the Petitioner achieved the listed benchmarks, we are unable to determine their 
relevance to his eligibility for the requested benefit at the time the Petition was filed in 2022. 
3 
sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact the consulting industry, the accounting industry, or 
otherwise impact economic initiatives more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 3 
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 the company's future staffing levels, business activity, 
associated tax revenue, and financial initiatives stand to provide substantial economic benefits in 
Florida or Texas or in the United States generally. While the business 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, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence 
that the projected 11 employees would represent a significant population of workers in that area, or 
that the endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit through 
employment levels, business activity, or tax revenue. The expert opinion letter characterizes this job 
creation and the tax payroll revenue as significant but does not specifically analyze by what measure 
the listed projections are significant in Florida, Texas, or nationally. Accordingly, the Petitioner's 
proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
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 findings" on issues 
that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C- , 26 I&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). 
III. 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. 
3 The Petitioner has provided, and we have reviewed, a substantial number of documents outlining the importance of 
businesses 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
4