dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 21, 2024 In Re: 34555614 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and asserts that he is 
eligible for the benefit sought. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by 
a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We 
review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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. 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. 
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 Director determined that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional but did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons set 
forth below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework 
and will dismiss the appeal accordingly. 
The first Dhanasar 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. In Dhanasar we said that, in 
determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of 
the proposed endeavor, noting 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. 
In the initial filing, the Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor was to provide services as a 
"Business and Financial Manager Consultant." Specifically, he contended he would "use my 
experience in finance to help enterprises in the U.S. improve operations and achieve better productivity 
and profitability levels, therefore generating revenues within the country and creating employment 
opportunities." The Petitioner further stated that he would focus "on the provision of in-depth 
investments, credit risk analysis, elaboration of business planning, and risk rating methodologies 
involving companies within different sectors of the economy and companies of different segments and 
sizes." 
The Director issued a request for evidence in which they requested, in part, additional evidence to 
establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance. The 
Director noted that the Petitioner's statement did not go into detail on his proposed endeavor and how 
he would be achieving said endeavor. Further, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposed to undertake had significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial economic effects for the national economy, as the 
Petitioner had asserted in the initial submission. 2 
In response to the request for evidence, the Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor would be to 
"offer business consultancy services to U.S. clients and business." He intended to "help clients by 
providing well-considered, specialized consultancy services." The business plan submitted in support 
indicated that the Petitioner planned to establish a consulting company as a "lead business process 
outsourcing and financial planning enterprise in I I Massachusetts," targeting "small- and mid­
sized businesses and start-ups in need of high-quality financial advice and planning services, as well 
as investment planning, accounting, and business process outsourcing services." The Petitioner did 
2 The Director also requested additional documentation to establish the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 
2 
not provide further detail on the specific prospective occupation or proposed endeavor that he would 
focus on to illustrate the nature of the work that he would perform during his day-to-day work 
activities. Nor did the Petitioner provide a detailed description explaining the manner through which he 
would prospectively deliver these services, supported by documentary evidence. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner 
qualified for a national interest waiver because he did not meet the 3-prong Dhanasar framework. In 
regard to prong one, the Director determined that while the Petitioner had established substantial merit, 
he had not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective benefit of 
his proposed endeavor stood to "sufficiently extend beyond the creation of his firm and clientele to 
impact his field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance." 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that in denying the petition, the Director "is 
applying the standard of proof of criminal cases, 'which is beyond a reasonable doubt"' rather than 
"the standard of proof applicable to the instant case, which is 'preponderance of the evidence."' An 
appeal must specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the 
unfavorable decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Although the Petitioner asserts that he has 
provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate his eligibility for a national interest waiver, he does not 
specify, as required, in what way the Director applied this stricter standard. 3 
The Petitioner further highlights on appeal the evidence he submitted in support of his petition and in 
response to the Director's request for evidence and maintains that he has demonstrated the proposed 
endeavor's national importance. He again asserts that his proposed endeavor "as an entrepreneur 
offering business consultancy services to U.S. clients holds national importance" because "business 
consultants are crucial for helping organizations improve performance and efficiency by providing 
effective business analysis, solutions, and maintaining companies' agenda of targets." The record 
reflects the Director's consideration of all evidence in the totality. The Petitioner's general objections 
on appeal regarding his eligibility for the EB-2 classification are insufficient to overcome the 
conclusions the Director reached based on the evidence submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner 
has not articulated on appeal how the Director erred in finding that the record did not demonstrate the 
proposed endeavor has national importance. The record does not offer evidence sufficient to translate 
how the Petitioner's specific work for his prospective clients stands to sufficiently impact U.S. 
interests or the relevant consulting business more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. The Petitioner has not established on appeal that his intent to apply his knowledge to his 
prospective clients is an activity that will have a broad impact. 
As for the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that his proposed endeavor will create jobs and contribute 
to the nation's economy, he has not demonstrated that the endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for the nation. See Dhanasar at 890. Absent probative evidence to show the realistic potential of the 
Petitioner's company to operate at all, it is not evident that the company will generate revenue to create 
jobs, to expand, or to otherwise notably impact the economy in a location in which it intends to operate. 
3 The Petitioner also claims on appeal that the Director erred in determining that he had made "material changes" to his 
petition when he submitted his business plan in response to the Director's request for evidence. The record does not 
establish that the Director made such a determination. 
3 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that based on his "superior performance in my field, professional 
achievements, and expertise, it is in the national interest to grant me a National Interest Waiver." 
While the Petitioner stresses his credentials and work experience, which were also highlighted in his 
resume, work experience letters, and letters in support, such evidence addresses the Petitioner's 
knowledge, skills, education, and experience; these are considerations under Dhanasar's second 
prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Evidence of the Petitioner's credentials and experience do not 
demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor or establish that the impact of the 
endeavor would extend beyond the Petitioner's clientele. 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reason for dismissal is 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 agencies 
are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate 
decision); 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 a noncitizen is otherwise ineligible). The petition will remain 
denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4