dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 15, 2024 In Re: 31680283 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business consultant, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. The matter is now before us on combined 
motions to reopen and reconsider. 
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). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motions. 
Because the scope of a motion is limited to the prior decision, we will only review the latest decision 
in these proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). A motion to reopen must state new facts and be 
supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 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 may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for 
the requested benefit. 1 
In our decision, we explained the Petitioner had not shown that his proposed endeavor sufficiently 
extends beyond his client companies to impact the business consulting services field or the economy 
at a level commensurate with national importance. In addition, we stated that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that his revenue projections and potential business activity, even if realistic, would 
provide a significant economic benefit to the United States such that it would rise to the level of 
national importance. 
1 See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the 
outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that he submitted documentary evidence to demonstrate that his 
proposed endeavor of being a business management specialist for his company has national 
implications. The Petitioner contends that we erred in not considering his current and prospective 
position when determining the national importance of his proposed endeavor. In a supplemental 
statement, the Petitioner explains that he plans to provide a range of services to businesses and private 
investors including consultancy on cross-border investment structures, business planning, marketing 
strategies, financial organization, people management, and educating U.S. business owners and 
maintains that his endeavor will impact the regional economy, create more job opportunities, and will 
have broader implications to societal welfare. The Petitioner also asserts that we dismissed his 
business plan that clearly outlines his proposed endeavor's benefits to the U.S. economy as well as the 
services the Petitioner plans to provide to small and midsize enterprises through his business. 
Additionally, the Petitioner claims that we did not give proper consideration to the expert opinion 
letters, company documents, and probative research because we concluded the documents did not 
sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
Our appellate decision, however, specifically considered the Petitioner's submission including his 
personal statement, business plan, expert opinion letters, and industry articles and reports. We 
determined the Petitioner had not sufficiently demonstrated that his specific endeavor would have 
national implications for the business consulting services field or industry. Our focus in considering 
national importance is not on the industry itself; instead, we look to "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposed to undertake." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining 
whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Id. 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." Id. 
at 890. As noted by the Director, and affirmed in our prior decision, the record does not show that his 
specific proposed endeavor's impact stands to sufficiently extend beyond his own company and its 
clientele to impact his field or industry, the U.S. economy, or societal welfare at a level commensurate 
with national importance. 
The Petitioner also maintains that we used a "stricter standard than required to demonstrate the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor." Except where a different standard is specified by law, a 
petitioner must prove eligibility for the requested immigration benefit by a preponderance of the 
evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. Under the preponderance of the evidence 
standard, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner's claim is "probably true." Id. at 376. Here, 
the Petitioner states that his record demonstrates his proposed endeavor's national importance and 
requests that we "evaluate whether the record includes sufficient detail regarding" his endeavor, but 
the Petitioner does not explain how our specific conclusions applied a stricter standard of proof 
2 
Furthermore, the Petitioner argues that we "erred in not considering Precedent Opinion" and cites to 
Matter of E-L-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 814 (BIA 2005) which establishes that Board precedent decisions 
apply to all proceedings involving the same issue unless and until it is overruled or modified. 
However, the Petitioner mentions only Dhanasar. 2 He states: "As in Matter of Dhanasar, [the 
Petitioner] submitted opinions from three (3) independent experts holding senior positions in academia 
and industry and a professional business plan that describe the importance of his proposed endeavor 
and, more broadly, the benefits of his work for the United States. In addition, we submitted probative 
research to support our claims." In Dhanasar, "[t]he petitioner submitted probative expert letters from 
individuals holding senior positions in academia, government, and industry that describe the 
importance of hypersonic propulsion research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests." Id. at 892. In 
addition, the petitioner "provided media articles and other evidence documenting the interest of the 
House Committee on Armed Services in the development of hypersonic technologies and discussing 
the potential significance of U.S. advances in this area of research and development." Id. Here, the 
Petitioner has not established that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the Dhanasar 
precedent decision. For example, unlike the scientific researcher in Dhanasar, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that his proposed endeavor offers broader implications in his field. 
Moreover, regarding the three expert opinion letters, we noted in our decision that the letters restated 
claims the Petitioner already made concerning the national importance of the proposed endeavor and 
which we analyzed in the decision. We concluded that the authors did not provide additional analysis or 
corroborating details to support the restated claims. We also analyzed the Petitioner's "probative 
research" such as articles and reports, as well as the statistics about foreign direct investment, trade, and 
small businesses that relates to how these industries and the professions within them are important and 
correctly explained in our decision that 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 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that our analysis was in error. 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. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-
76. 
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. The motion to reconsider must therefore be dismissed. 
2 Our appellate decision specifically considered the Petitioner's eligibility under the Dhanasar analytical framework's first 
prong. 
3 
The Petitioner has not established facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant reopening 
of the proceedings, nor has he shown that we erred as a matter oflaw or USCIS policy. 3 Consequently, 
we have no basis for reopening or reconsidering our prior decision. Accordingly, the motions will be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains dismissed, and his 
underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3 We note the Petitioner states that we did not consider all his arguments under the three prongs. However, because the 
Petitioner did not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we did not need to address his eligibility 
under the remaining prongs, and therefore, we reserved them. 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516. 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4