dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 09, 2024 In Re: 33347126 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business consultant, 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 though the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, he had not 
established that 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 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 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; 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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 individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal 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. 
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. 
According to the Petitioner's business plan submitted with the initial filing, he intends to direct and 
oversee the operation of a "business consulting agency that will operate from the state of 
Massachusetts" and will offer "expert business consulting services to small and medium-sized 
companies in need of a business plan and business model development, strategic consulting and 
financial business process outsourcing (BPO) services." Under the Petitioner's "expert direction as 
Executive Business Consultant," the proposed company "will create further employment opportunities 
and qualify a number of individuals to work in the Management Consulting Industry in the U.S., 
providing them with the knowledge and skill needed to enhance this sector and thus benefiting the 
wider U.S. economy." The Petitioner also submitted recommendation letters and documents related 
to his education and professional experience in support of his eligibility. 
The Director determined, in part, that the Petitioner's initial filing did not demonstrate the proposed 
endeavor's national importance and issued a request for evidence (RFE). In response, the Petitioner 
submitted additional documentation, to include a personal statement and letters from individuals 
expressing interest in working with the Petitioner and his company. According to the Petitioner's 
personal statement, he intends to "perform as a Business Consultant and provide [his] specialized 
services to impact Financial Services Companies, Consumer Products and Hospitality, Government 
Organizations, Technology, Media, Telecommunications Companies, Healthcare, and Life Sciences 
Sectors, and Energy, Resource, and Industrial Companies through innovation in the U.S. Due to [his] 
extensive professional experience in internal auditing, compliance, risk management, internal controls 
assessment, and management consulting, [he] will use [his] extensive experience to run" his proposed 
company. The Petitioner indicated that his "proposed endeavor will certainly produce positive social 
and economic effects and spur innovation, having a significant impact on the efficiency and 
profitability of American companies." 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that though the proposed endeavor had substantial 
merit, the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate the Petitioner's endeavor stands to 
have a broader impact on the field, rising to the level of national importance. The Director noted the 
2 
Petitioner's claim that his proposed endeavor will broadly impact various areas since business 
administration is the backbone of any given establishment, a business' ability to succeed causes a 
ripple effect, and the endeavor will not only impact his direct clients and the businesses he works with 
but rather the social welfare of Americans as a whole. The Director found that the submitted 
documentation, specifically the excerpts of articles and reports discussing entrepreneurship and 
consultancy industries, were not sufficient to corroborate his assertions. In addition, the Director 
determined that the evidence did not establish the Petitioner's endeavor has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or otherwise reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Regarding the Petitioner's claim that his proposed endeavor 
meets the national importance prong due in part to the occupational shortage in the United States, the 
Director noted that a shortage in a particular field does not render the proposed endeavor nationally 
important. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director made numerous erroneous conclusions of law and 
fact. He asserts that the RFE response included supporting documentation to show there is specific 
interest from the U.S. government in the Petitioner's endeavor as demonstrated by governmental 
efforts to revitalize small businesses and enhance capital access across the nation. The Petitioner 
contends the record demonstrates his proposed endeavor meets the national importance element of the 
first prong of Dhanasar because his financial management model, which he successfully implemented 
in Brazil to facilitate sustainable profitability for small businesses, "will fundamentally alter the 
landscape of small business success rates." 
Upon review, the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence 
to evaluate whether he had demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he meets the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not 
the importance of the field, 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. Generally, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of a 
petitioner's work. We noted in Dhanasar that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed 
endeavor and 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. Although the Petitioner discusses 
the value and importance of financial management and business consultancy and their impact on the 
U.S. economy, Dhanasar requires us to focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake," not the importance of the field, industry, or profession. Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner provided recommendation letters and documents relating to his education, professional 
experience, and accomplishments. However, the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to 
the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to 
the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor he proposes to 
undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. The record in its totality does not 
show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's specific services stand to sufficiently 
extend beyond his prospective clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance. 
3 
Further, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his company's proposed operations would provide 
substantial economic benefits to Massachusetts, the region, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance, nor did he demonstrate that his company's activities 
would substantially impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. For 
example, the Petitioner's business plan projects that his company will have 42 employees by the fifth 
year of operation. However, the record does not contain sufficient details and supporting evidence to 
demonstrate how his company will reach the stated economic impact objectives; how the company 
will pay for potential workers and business expenses; and overall, how his proposed endeavor will 
substantially impact job creation and economic growth in the region or nation. 
While the business plan forecasts total operating expenses to reach $3.4 million by the fifth year of 
operation, the record lacks evidence to show adequate investment funds, either from the Petitioner or 
other entities. The business plan lists "paid-in capital" of $40,000 and "cash and other current assets" 
of $53,000 in the first year of operation without specifying the source of the capital and assets. We 
also note the record contains three letters from individuals indicating interest in working with the 
Petitioner in the future. However, the letters do not reflect contractual work or investment 
commitments with the Petitioner's company. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his 
company has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive 
economic effects. 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. Further 
analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would 
serve no meaningful purpose. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies 
are not required to make 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 alternate issues on appeal 
where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4