dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 27, 2024 In Re: 31474415 
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 strategic consulting 
services to "serve, help and support American small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) in the 
development and execution of commercial and sales actions, strategies and decision-making processes 
with a primary focus on stimulating and increasing these businesses' market valuation, revenues, 
product or service placement, and profitability." 
The Director issued a request for evidence in which they requested, in part, additional evidence to 
establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had national importance. While the Director noted 
that the Petitioner's intentions were to provide a valuable service, he 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. 2 In response to the request for 
evidence, the Petitioner detailed that he would develop and execute commercial and sales actions for 
companies, providing "tailored and innovative strategies to impose their decision-making processes, 
stimulate and increase their market valuation, boost job creation, and increase their contributions to 
the broader American economy." The Petitioner did 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 
consistent, detailed description explaining the manner through which he would prospectively deliver these 
services, supported by documentary evidence as requested by the Director. 
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 although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had 
substantial merit, the record did not demonstrate the proposed endeavor had national importance, as 
2 The Director also requested additional documentation to establish the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 
2 
the record lacked independent objective evidence of the Petitioner's future plans. The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner had not established that the potential prospective impact of the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor to develop his consulting company had implications beyond 
the individuals the Petitioner would serve. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief in which he reasserts his eligibility for a national interest 
waiver based on the evidence of record. The Petitioner references information in previously submitted 
articles and reports as evidence of the national importance of his endeavor as a strategic consultant. 
These articles and reports discuss the growth of strategic consulting and management consulting 
services markets in the United States and the importance of small businesses to the U.S. economy, the 
reasons that small businesses fail, an upward trend in small business applications, and the influx of 
federal funding to assist small businesses. While these documents provide insight into the role of 
small businesses in the economy and the challenges they face as they strive to succeed, they do not 
serve as evidence to show how the Petitioner would provide consultancy services to small- and 
medium-sized businesses at a scale that would have a national impact. The Petitioner also provided 
statements in which he discusses his entrepreneurial nature and its impact on the world, noting that 
the consulting market in the United States is a constantly growing industry, with great importance and 
demand. 
While the evidence of record (including several letters of recommendations lauding the Petitioner's 
talents and professionalism) indicates that the Petitioner has extensive experience and an 
understanding of business development and strategies, the record does not include a plan or other 
indication of how the Petitioner will operate a strategic consultancy company that will impact 
businesses or the economy at the level of national importance contemplated under the first prong of 
the Dhanasar framework. 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 on the economy. The 
record does not offer evidence sufficient to translate how the Petitioner's specific work stands to 
sufficiently impact U.S. interests or the relevant consulting business more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that his proposed endeavor will "boost job 
creation," 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. He has not provided data or studies establishing that the location of his proposed 
endeavor is in an economically depressed area or how his business would impact the region or the 
regions in which his clients operate. He has not provided evidence of similar successful business 
models or other comparable examples to demonstrate the potential broader implications of his 
proposal. 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. Without sufficient 
information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his 
future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting 
from the Petitioner's pursuits as a consultant for businesses would reach the level of"substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. See Id. 
3 
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