dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 24, 2025 In Re: 36774069 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chief executive officer, 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 although 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. 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 Christa'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, a petitioner must first 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. Because 
this classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate 
showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
We set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the 
job offer, and thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner 
demonstrates that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that on 
1 See 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). 
balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus 
of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, indicate 
that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and 
thus of a labor certification. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to operate a consulting firm, 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 conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. The Director 
determined, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor's national 
importance, that he is well positioned to advance it, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United 
States to waive the job offer requirement. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's denial 
was erroneous and that he submitted sufficient evidence with the petition and in response to the Director's 
request for evidence to demonstrate his proposed endeavor's national importance. 
2 
The Petitioner states that he seeks to operate his business, which focuses on establishing, initiating, and 
optimizing business development strategies based on business intelligence. The Petitioner explains that 
the primary objective of his company is to expand businesses globally through foreign trade while also 
supporting the import and export of products with a focus on the automation and electronic security 
segment. The Petitioner intends to work as a self-employed consultant and states that he is currently 
working for two companies in the security integration sector. The record includes a business plan, expert 
opinion letter, recommendation letters, and industry reports and articles. While we do not discuss every 
piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
The Petitioner argues that his proposed endeavor is of national importance because it will produce 
significant national benefits and meet the demands of clients from all over the country. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
The relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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. 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. Here, the Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor aimed 
at helping other businesses will create more employment opportunities, increase tax revenues, and 
improve the economy. The Petitioner, nonetheless, has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor 
offers broader implications in his field or substantial positive economic effects for the country that rise to 
the level of national importance. 
In denying the Petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner "has not offered sufficient information 
and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance." The Director further noted that the Petitioner failed to establish that his proposed endeavor 
"stands to sufficiently extend beyond an organization and the clients [he] would serve to impact the 
industry or field more broadly." 
While we acknowledge the substantial merits of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, we, like the Director, 
conclude the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's impact will be nationally 
important. Similarly, while we also acknowledge the additional documents submitted in support of the 
appeal, the Petitioner did not provide additional insight in response to the Director's finding that the 
proposed endeavor does not have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers 
substantial positive economic effects for the country. 
Accordingly, we adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent 
decision. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 
230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has 
been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. 
INS, 87 F3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Courts of Appeals in holding that appellate 
adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized 
consideration" to the case). As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar' s first prong, we conclude 
3 
that he has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. 
Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and also hereby reserve 
the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in 
Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 of L-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 Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4