dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20640460 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 19, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business management consultant, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that the 
Petitioner had not established that a waiver of the required job off er, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. We dismissed the subsequent appeal, concluding that the record 
does not establish that the proposed endeavor would have national importance, reserving our opinion 
on whether the record establishes the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the endeavor and 
whether, on balance, it would be beneficial for the United States to waive the requirements of a job 
off er and thus of a labor certification. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner asserts that we 
misapplied case law and that he is eligible for the requested benefit. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the 
time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(3). We do not consider new facts or evidence in a motion 
to reconsider. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner asserts on motion to reconsider that we "applied the wrong analogy to the applicable 
case law and wrong standard of proof to the case by concluding that the [P]etitioner did not establish 
that the proposed endeavor has national importance." Generally, the Petitioner selects passages from 
our prior appeal decision and asserts that our precedent decision, Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), supports the assertions he made on appeal. We disagree. 
First, with regard to the first Dhanasar prong, the Petitioner specifically cites Dhanasar for the 
proposition that "we do not evaluate prospective impact [ of a proposed endeavor] solely in geographic 
terms. Instead, we look for broader implications. Even ventures and undertakings that have as their 
focus one geographic area of the United States may properly be considered to have national 
importance." Id. at 889. However, the Petitioner does not elaborate on how our decision may have 
improperly limited our evaluation of the proposed endeavor solely in geographic terms. Instead, for 
example, we observed: 
The proposed endeavor of managing [a] business consulting company and providing 
business consulting services to other companies benefits those companies and clients. 
However, the record does not establish how the endeavor would have broader 
implications in terms of significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have 
substantial positive economic effects, beyond the Petitioner's employer and clients, as 
contemplated by the firstDhanasar prong. 
Thus, we did not evaluate the proposed endeavor's prospective impact solely in geographic terms in 
our prior decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that we misapplied Dhanasar in 
this respect. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
Next, the Petitioner cites Dhanasar for the proposition 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." 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The Petitioner reasserts on motion that this statement implies a 
"'significant potential to employ U.S. workers[,]' which is not the same as 'potential to employ a 
significant number of U.S. workers[,]' as the 'significance' is in the 'potential' or 'probability,' not in 
the 'number of jobs' the endeavor may create." We find no error in our analysis in the underlying 
decision that the focus of the first Dhanasar prong is on the significance of the potential economic 
impact or broader implications of a proposed endeavor, and whether that rises to the level of a 
substantial positive economic effect. Id. at 889-90. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that we 
misapplied Dhanasar in that respect. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). As we stated in our appeal decision, 
the record lacks evidence establishing how the proposed endeavor's potential to employ between four 
and eight direct workers, and indirectly contribute toward up to 44 jobs in 22 industries, has the 
potential to create a significant economic impact or have broader implications, rising to the level of a 
substantial positive economic effect as contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. at 889-90. 
Relatedly, on motion, the Petitioner asserts that Dhanasar is ambiguous regarding "a certain number 
of jobs or a certain amount of federal, state, local, and payroll taxes" that may be "decisive in 
establishing the substantial positive economic effects." Substantial positive economic effects, as 
contemplated by Dhanasar, are a function of the scope of a proposed endeavor; economic effects that 
rise to the level of substantial vary between a particularmetropo litan area and a rural area, for example, 
and even from one neighborhood to another within a particular area. As noted in our prior decision, 
petitioners bear the burden of articulating how they satisfy eligibility criteria, see section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361, such as whether a proposed endeavor's potential economic effects are 
2 
substantial, given the scope of the particular endeavor. Simply providing a number of workers to be 
employed and taxes to be paid, without more, does not provide sufficient context regarding whether 
the endeavor has the potential to create a significant economic impact or have broader implications, 
rising to the level of a substantial positive economic effect as contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. at 
889-90. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that we misapplied Dhanasar in this respect. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
Next, the Petitioner asserts that we did not apply a preponderance of evidence standard, see, e.g., 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010), to his general statements onappeai such 
as that his endeavor will "help American businesses to be inserted in the Brazilian marketplace, 
expanding their revenues through exportation." The Petitioner further asserts: 
[I]f the endeavor would develop U.S.-Brazil trade and help small businesses and 
businesspeople, if it has the potential to assist qualified Brazilian companies to expand 
their business in U.S., help U.S. small business to large corporations break into the 
highly complex market of Brazil and expand their revenues through export, it is 
reasonable to conclude that the endeavor does have broader implications, beyond the 
business itself and its clientele and employees, fueling the economy in several ways. 
A petitioner must establish that he meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Id. In other words, a petitionermustshowthatwhatit claims is "more 
likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met his burden under the 
preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, 
probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 
(Comm'r 1989). The Petitioner generally states that the endeavor will involve an unspecified amount 
of trade between the United States and Brazil and that the Petitioner's clients will generally "expand 
their revenues through export." These statements do not provide sufficient details about the endeavor, 
the clients, the nature of their business, the level of revenue expansion, and other relevant, probative, 
and credible information that could establish that it is more likely than not that the results would create 
substantial positive economic effects or other broader implications that rise to the level of national 
importance, as contemplated by Dhanasar. 26 I&NDec. at889-90. Again,petitioners bearthe burden 
of articulating how they satisfy eligibility criteria. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The 
Petitioner does not establish on motion how the record provided sufficient, probative information 
about the potential international trade that would support a conclusion that it rises to the level of 
substantial positive economic effects or other broader implications. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that we misapplied the preponderance of evidence standard or Dhanasar in that respect 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that our decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(3). Specifically, the Petitioner has not established 
that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong, and 
therefore he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We again reserve our opinion regarding 
whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. 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 
3 
is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-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 
The motion to reconsider does not show that our previous decision was based on an inconect 
application of law or policy. As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise 
merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4