dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 15, 2023 In Re: 28020738 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a mentor in career development and a training consultant, seeks second preference 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an 
individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
attached to this EB-2 classification. 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional 
ability and for a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 1 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 ofChawathe , 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 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, petitioners must demonstrate qualification 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion2, grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
1 The Petitioner did not claim eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature) . 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. At initial filing, the 
Petitioner stated that she "intend[ed] to advance [her] career as a Mentor in Career Development and 
Training Consultant, developing business identities and promoting professional development that will 
improve the beauty field and substantially increase the economy of the United States." In addition, 
the Petitioner presented a business plan to provide mentoring and consulting services "to help beauty 
salon owners and professionals of beauty reach high levels on their business and careers." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner indicated: 
I intend to advance my career by starting and operating a company to provide 
Consultancy and Management Advice to Beauty Salon owners and other companies in 
the beauty and aesthetic services industry, assisting in making important decisions, 
improving points such as employee motivation, strategic planning, financial life, 
resource allocation, internal routines, among others. 
The Petitioner also offered a revised business plan reflecting that the "company's m1ss1on, when 
providing the intended services, is to add value to companies in the beauty and aesthetic services industry, 
in order to promote their growth and develop the business, reaching more and more people and providing 
them with well-being when caring of your appearance." 
The Director determined the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor's substantial merit but not 
its national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains: 
. . . I intend to advance my career undertaking and operating a company to provide 
Consultancy and Advisory in Management to Beauty Salon owners and other 
companies in the beauty and aesthetic services industry, assisting in making important 
decisions, improving points such as employee motivation, strategic planning, financial 
life, resource allocation, internal routines, among others. 
In addition, my venture will also contribute very positively to the generation of jobs 
since I will need to hire qualified professionals to give me the necessary support to 
develop the proposed activity and develop my consulting project in several places 
within the American territory. 
In addition, I will train and qualify other professionals in the area of beauty and 
cosmetology who wish to deepen their knowledge to develop themselves even more in 
their field, adding innovative techniques, which will certainly directly collaborate for 
the development and qualification of the sector, in addition to adding professional value 
to the worker, enabling the inclusion and boosting of the labor market and the growth 
of the occupational perspective in the beauty industry. 
2 
In determining 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 specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Although she argues 
the importance, benefits, and economic impact of the beauty industry, the Petitioner must demonstrate 
the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of her consulting, advising, and mentoring 
company to beauty salons rather than the importance of the overall beauty field or industry. 3 In 
Dhanasar, we 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. We note here the Petitioner's claim of a professional shortage in the beauty industry does not 
render her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such 
shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the 
labor certification process. 
In addition, the Petitioner emphasizes her experience as "a Hairdresser for over 20 years." However, 
the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, 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 that she proposes to undertake has national importance under 
Dhanasar's first prong. 
Moreover, 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. The 
Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate her assertions that the 
prospective impact of her beauty consulting company rises to the level of national importance. 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, the 
record does not show through supporting documentation how her beauty and aesthetic advising 
company stands to sufficiently extend beyond its prospective clients or companies, to impact the 
industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her business plan's claimed revenue and employment 
projections, even if credible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers 
substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Although the revenue forecasts range from 
approximately from $1.03 7M in year 1 to $1. l 83M in year 5, the business plan does not establish that 
the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 4 Similarly, although the business plan 
claims only two positions needed to operate the company, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that such 
future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to an unidentified regional or U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 5 The Petitioner, for 
instance, did not show that such employment figures would utilize a significant population of workers 
3 The Petitioner's arguments and associated evidence relate more to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor 
rather than the national importance part. 
4 In fact the business the plan does not identify the location of the business. 
5 The business plan's positions include an "Accountant" and "Secretary." 
3 
in the area or would substantially impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or 
nationally. For all these reasons, the record does not establish that, beyond the limited benefits 
provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader 
implications rising to the level of having national importance or that it would offer substantial positive 
economic effects. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of her eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. We also reserve 
a determination on the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification as an individual 
of exceptional ability. 6 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 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 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4