dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 23, 2024 In Re: 30354405 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a process engineer and entrepreneur, 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 proposed endeavor was of substantial merit or national importance, that the Petitioner 
was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that it would be beneficial to the United 
States to waive the requirements of a job offer and labor certification. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&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 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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, 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined 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. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Regarding her claim of eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong, the Petitioner wrote in her definitive 
statement that her proposed endeavor involves "developing consulting projects" through her company, 
She asserted that she intends to "deliver business consultancy to U.S. 
companies and entrepreneurs, enabling them to grow and maximize performance." 
To support her application, the Petitioner submitted a statement, her resume, a business plan, copies of 
and information regarding her degrees, letters confirming her past employment, her professional license 
and memberships, her publications, a series of industry reports and articles, letters of recommendation 
from past co-workers, and an expert opinion letter. In response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner 
supplemented the record with information about her company, industry reports and articles, and letters 
from investors and prospective clients. 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that in denying the petition, the Director 
"imposed novel substantive and evidentiary requirements." An appeal must specifically identify any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 
l 03.3(a)(l )(v). Although the Petitioner asserts that she has provided evidence sufficient to 
demonstrate her eligibility for a national interest waiver, she does not specify, as required, how the 
Director erred or what factors in the decision were erroneous. Moreover, while she asserts that the 
1 See also 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
submitted evidence shows her "vast experience," "expertise," and the U.S. shortage of professionals 
in the Petitioner's field, she does not address how the evidence shows that the proposed endeavor is 
of substantial merit or national importance. 
In detennining national importance, 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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
noted 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. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that her proposed work stands to "significantly contribute to the U.S. 
economy through job creation and economic impact" through consultancy services primarily to "small 
and medium-sized U.S. companies." 
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. 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. The record 
contains articles indicating the importance of the Petitioner's field, but these reports do not specifically 
address her proposed endeavor. The Petitioner has submitted letters from her clients, in which the 
authors attest to the Petitioner's acumen and capability. However, the record does not contain 
evidence demonstrating how these individual interactions impact the field more broadly in a way that 
implicates national importance. 
Moreover, she has not demonstrated 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. An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, may have 
national importance. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Here, however, the business plan does not 
adequately support these projections of job and revenue creation. 
The Petitioner's business plan anticipates that the Petitioner's company will reach a total of 14 
employees in year five and payroll expenses will increase from $70,500.00 in year one to $401,000.00 
in year five. She also projected generating over $4.1 million in gross revenue over those initial five 
years. However, the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify 
how these projections will be realized, nor does the record contain evidence to support the business 
plan's financial projections. 2 The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the evidence 
demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is probably true, where the determination of truth is made based 
on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In 
2 We note that in response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted several investor and client intent letters. However , all the 
letters were dated after the filing of the petition . A petitioner must meet all of the eligibility requirements of the petition 
at the time of filing . 8 C.F .R. § § 103 .2(b )(1), ( 12). 
3 
evaluating the evidence, truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality. See id. Here, the lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative value 
of the business plan. 
Furthermore, even if we assumed all the projections in the business plan were accurate, the record 
lacks evidence demonstrating that its impact would be nationally important. The Petitioner's appeal 
brief states that the proposed endeavor will impact the "national economy" by "secure[ ing] the success 
of small and medium-sized U.S. companies" and "[s]timulating the domestic job market." Yet the 
Petitioner did not provide documentation to support these generalized statements that her consulting 
services will result in substantial economic growth on the level of national importance. The record 
does not illustrate how creating 14 jobs and generating $4.1 million in gross revenue over five years, 
as projected in the business plan, would have substantial positive economic effects on the level of 
national importance. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has therefore not provided 
sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor 
rises to the level of national importance. Accordingly, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate 
that the Petitioner ' s proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally 
important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish 
that her proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond her clientele to affect the region or nation 
more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. She has not shown 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. Thus, the Petitioner 's proposed work does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner 
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 Dhanasar 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 ofL-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 Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4