dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 28, 2024 In Re: 34409567 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner states that he is an entrepreneur who will provide business, administration, and 
consulting services through his company, He 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. 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center determined that although the Petitioner established that he 
qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as an advanced degree professional, he did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The Director applied the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 
I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), and concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfied 
both elements of the first prong, which requires a showing that the proposed endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance. The Director determined that the despite satisfying the 
substantial merit element, the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national 
importance. 2 In making this determination, the Director noted that the Petitioner provided evidence 
highlighting the importance of trade between Brazil and the United States and the significance of 
immigration entrepreneurs to the U.S. economy. However, the Director determined that the record 
lacks evidence showing that the Petitioner's work as an entrepreneur would have implications for his 
field or for the U.S. economy on a national scale. And despite recognizing the need for business and 
financial consultants, particularly within the scope of blood management, the Director found this factor 
to be insufficient to render the proposed endeavor nationally important. 
1 The record shows that the Petitioner previously filed two other Form 1-140 immigrant petitions (with receipt numbers 
respectively) in which he similarly sought a national interest waiver of the job 
offer requirement. Both petitions were denied, and we later dismissed the Petitioner 's appeal and two subsequent motions 
that stemmed from the denial of the petition with receipt number The Petitioner did not appeal the 
denial of the petition with receipt number 
2 Pursuant to Matter ofDhanasar , a national interest waiver may be granted to a Petitioner who demonstrates that: 1) the 
proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 2) the individual is well positioned to advance their 
proposed endeavor; and 3) on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
The Director also discussed the Petitioner's business plan and recommendation letters from peers and 
colleagues. Regarding the former, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not adequately 
explain how he intends to realize the business plan's staffing and revenue projections, nor did he 
establish that the projections, even with adequate evidentiary support, would result in a level of job 
growth or revenue generation that is commensurate with national importance. And although the 
Director acknowledged that the recommendation letters discussed the Petitioner's experience and 
achievements in his field, she determined that the letters did not include information about the 
proposed endeavor or explain how it is nationally important. The Director also pointed out that 
recommendation letters, while highlighting a petitioner's skills and qualifications, are more relevant 
to the second, rather than the first Dhanasar prong, which is the primary issue in this matter. 
In sum, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not substantiate that his specific business 
consulting endeavor would trigger substantial positive economic benefits or that it would otherwise 
result in a potential prospective impact at the national importance level. In light of the adverse 
conclusion on the national importance element of the first prong, the Director determined that there 
was no need to discuss the two remaining prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 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 I&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. 53 7, 53 7 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. We will also adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of 
Burbano, 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 F.3d 5, 8 (I st 
Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the 
decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director "imposed novel substantive and evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations." However, the Petitioner does not point to 
specific examples of this within the Director's request for evidence (RFE) or denial. Importantly, the 
Petitioner also does not offer a detailed analysis explaining the particular ways in which the Director 
"imposed novel substantive and evidentiary requirements" in denying the petition. 
The Petitioner further alleges that the Director "did not apply the proper standard of proof in this case, 
instead imposing a stricter standard ... to the detriment of the appellant." Except where a different 
standard is specified by law, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing 
immigration benefit requests. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375 (AAO 2010); see also 
Matter ofMartinez, 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); Matter ofSoo Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151, 152 
(BIA 1965). Accordingly, "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard ofproof governing national 
interest waiver petitions. See generally l USCIS Policy Manual, E.4(B), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While the Petitioner asserts that he has provided evidence 
sufficient to demonstrate his eligibility for the EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver, he 
does not further explain or identify a specific instance in which the Director applied a standard of 
proof other than the preponderance of evidence in denying the petition. 
2 
The Petitioner also argues that the Director did not "give due regard" to certain evidence, such as his 
resume, business plan, letters of recommendation, or the industry reports he previously submitted. 
However, as noted above, the Director specifically mentioned and discussed certain content in the 
Petitioner's business plan, and she explained why the submitted letters of recommendation were not 
sufficient to establish the proposed endeavor's national importance. Further, while the Petitioner 
stresses his credentials and work experience, which were also highlighted in his resume, such evidence 
addresses the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience; these are considerations under 
Dhanasar' s second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Evidence of the Petitioner's credentials and experience in 
business consulting does not demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor or 
establish that the impact of the endeavor would extend beyond the Petitioner's clients and employees. 
And while the Petitioner notes that he previously submitted articles and industry reports, it is unclear 
how this evidence establishes the proposed endeavor's national importance given that none of these 
submissions pertain specifically to the endeavor in question, but rather more broadly discuss the 
employment and wages of chief executives and issues concerning patient blood management, a field 
in which the Petitioner seeks to provide consulting services. 
Lastly, the Petitioner incorrectly asserts that the Director made adverse determinations on the second 
and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework and concluded that the Petitioner has not established that 
he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor or that on balance, the United States would 
benefit from waiving the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification. As previously 
stated, however, the denial of this petition was based solely on a first prong analysis in which the 
Director outlined adverse findings on the element of national importance. Contrary to the Petitioner's 
assertion, the Director specifically declined to address the two remaining prongs of the Dhanasar 
framework. It is therefore unclear whether the Petitioner properly reviewed the Director's decision. 
In sum, the Petitioner does not adequately address the factors raised in the denial and makes no 
compelling arguments explaining how his endeavor's impact would attain the level of national 
importance, extending beyond his employees and the clients and businesses he intends to serve. As 
such, the Petitioner has not overcome the basis for the denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3