dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 12, 2025 In Re: 37090024 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , an entrepreneur , 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 the record did not 
establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor; that she is well-positioned to advance the 
endeavor; or 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. 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 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 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S . academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor 's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master 's 
degree. Id. 
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. Matter ofDhanasar , 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, proposes to develop and act as chief executive officer ofl 
a company that will "offer consultancy and communication advice focused on reputation, 
[ s ]pokesperson positioning ... and [b]rand [b]uilding for CEOs, entrepreneurs, companies, of all sizes, 
traditional or startups." intends "to help companies achieve continuity, 
sustainability, and development through the humanization of the relationship between companies, 
brands, consumers, and investors around the US." 
The Director determined that though the Petitioner has demonstrated her endeavor has substantial 
merit, she has not established the national importance of the endeavor; that she is well-positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor; or that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would be 
benefit the United States. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit 
may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, 
culture, health, or education. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that in denying her petition, the Director incorrectly applied erroneous 
legal standards and failed to conduct a detailed review of the evidence. The Petitioner also asserts the 
Director mistakenly characterized her endeavor as "consulting," even though her company also intends 
to provide "knowledge sharing, professional training, and research and publications." However, in the 
denial decision, the Director cited to Petitioner's counsel in expansively describing the Petitioner's intent 
"to leverage the CEO, I Iexpertise and knowledge to provide Small Medium Business 
(SMB) strategies to communicate better for all stakeholders (employees, investors, customers), helping 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
I 
I 
them to develop, grow, and generate more jobs, taxes, and socio-economic benefits, gaining more 
competitiveness and efficiency, through humanization of companies, generation of empathy, more 
diverse, plural and inclusive." After our review of the record, we concur with the Director that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of her endeavor. 
The Petitioner asserts her endeavor has national importance as it aligns with the national goals of 
economic growth and corporate responsibility through its elevation of industry standards and businesses 
practices. The Petitioner also claims her endeavor has positive social impact by humanizing corporate 
communication, enhancing employer branding, improving community engagement, and "fostering a 
more inclusive and empathetic business environment." In comparing herself, an entrepreneur, to a 
standard employee, the Petitioner contends she can have broader impact as an entrepreneur in developing 
Iin this role, she will have the capacity to influence various businesses, clients, and 
industries simultaneously. In comparing herself to the petitioner in Dhanasar, the Petitioner asserts she 
has similar plans to engage in "knowledge transfer, technical advancements, and subjective benefits 
derived from the expertise of foreign professionals," and "establish a company that disseminates 
knowledge and engages with society and professionals beyond traditional employment boundaries ... 
unlike a teacher in a classroom." However, while we acknowledge the importance of economic growth 
and corporate growth and responsibility, and additional fields impacted by the Petitioner's endeavor, 
merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the 
Petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." Dhanasar at 889. Here, the Petitioner's asserts she plans to disseminate information 
through studies, publications, and media attraction, but she has not demonstrated these contributions 
or her company's work would have broader implications for the relevant fields. Overall, she has not 
sufficiently demonstrated her endeavor will extend beyond her company's clients' interests in a 
manner that has national or global impact in these fields, or broader implications arising from the 
endeavor at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts the Director inaccurately assessed the job creation potential of her endeavor and 
did not consider important contextual factors. Specifically, the Petitioner compares the EB-2 immigrant 
classification and national interest waiver to those of other employment classifications, asserting the 
requirements of other classifications should not be applied to her instant petition. The Petitioner 
references her business plan in claiming that within five years, her endeavor will result in the creation of 
26 direct jobs and 98 indirect jobs in accordance with "RIMS II calculations." Similarly, the Petitioner 
contends on appeal that the total payroll forl lcould amount to approximately 6.2 million 
dollars and tax revenue 930 thousand dollars, annually. However, the Petitioner has not submitted 
sufficient supporting evidence corroborating these projected employment and financial figures or 
established the significance of the data to show the endeavor would provide substantial economic benefits 
to the region or national economy more broadly. While the proposed endeavor may stimulate economic 
activity at some level, it is the Petitioner's burden to demonstrate the economic effects of the proposed 
endeavor will be substantial and at a level commensurate with national importance. Overall, the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated her proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers 
or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects beyond her company and clients, such that it 
would have broader implications for the United States. 
B. Additional Dhanasar Prongs and Ineligibility 
3 
As our finding on this issue is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and reserve 
whether the Petitioner has met the additional prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to 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 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4