dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 20, 2024 In Re: 29846255 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business coach and consultant, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualifies 
for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that the 
record did not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is 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 immigrant classification
, as either a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the classification, the petitioner must then establish 
eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national 
interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for 
adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to work as a business coach through his own company, based in Florida. The 
Petitioner states that he will provide tailored business coaching services and will offer his expertise 
and guidance to individuals and organizations seeking to enhance their sales, marketing, and overall 
business development strategies. 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. Based upon the evidence in the record that the Petitioner has obtained the foreign equivalent 
of a bachelor's degree in business administration followed by at least five years of progressive 
experience in business development, we agree. Additionally, the Director analyzed the record as to 
whether the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability but concluded that the record 
did not establish that the Petitioner qualifies as such. 
As to the Petitioner's request for a waiver of the job offer requirement, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish any of the three required Dhanasar prongs, and therefore is not eligible for 
a national interest waiver. Regarding the first Dhanasar prong, the Director did not make a finding as 
to whether the Petitioner demonstrated the endeavor's substantial merit but did conclude that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate its national importance. The Director stated that the Petitioner, in the 
initial filing, "submitted evidence in an attempt to demonstrate that he is an alien of exceptional 
ability" but "failed to specify her proposed endeavor and failed to explain how the evidence in the 
record demonstrates she satisfied the three-prong test" in Matter ofDhanasar. As to the Petitioner's 
business entity, the Director noted that "a search in Google net and EDGAR did not reveal" the 
existence of this entity.2 The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
proposed endeavor has the significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial 
positive economic effects. The Director additionally concluded that the evidence did not show that 
the endeavor has national or global implications within the field. Finally, the Director found that the 
Petitioner's business plan did not demonstrate the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's 
endeavor. The Director similarly concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he is well­
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor or that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement 
would benefit the United States. 3 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 EDGAR, the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system, is the primary system for companies and others 
submitting documents under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Trust Indenture Act of 
1939, and the Investment Company Act of 1940. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, About EDGAR, 
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/about. 
3 Because we agree with the Director's ultimate conclusion as to the national importance element of the first Dhanasar 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner makes several assertions regarding specific claimed deficiencies in the 
Director's decision. First, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by analyzing whether the 
Petitioner is an individual of exceptional ability, because the Petitioner does not seek to be classified 
as such and instead qualifies for the EB-2 immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional. 
The Petitioner also contends that the Director erred by not making a finding as to whether the proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit. Additionally, the Petitioner points out that the Director used feminine 
pronouns in some of the decision language, although the Petitioner is male and uses masculine 
pronouns. The Petitioner further asserts that the Director erred by invoking "Google net and EDGAR" 
to determine that the Petitioner's business entity does not exist. Finally, the Petitioner notes that he 
did not submit a business plan, although the Director refers to a business plan in the decision. The 
Petitioner contends that these "procedural errors cause confusion regarding whether [the Petitioner's] 
case was properly evaluated and whether the denial was appropriate." 
As to the Petitioner's claim regarding his eligibility for the EB-2 classification, we agree with the 
Petitioner that an individual need only establish that they are either an advanced degree professional 
or an individual of exceptional ability, and not both, to qualify for the classification. Section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. The Director did not need to analyze the Petitioner's eligibility under both 
sections, but we do not agree that completing this additional analysis is necessarily a legal error. 
However, the Petitioner also notes that there are several places in the decision where the Director, after 
determining that the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional, refers to the Petitioner as "not 
qualifying for the requested classification" and appears to consider the Petitioner not qualifying as an 
individual of exceptional ability to be a negative factor. While the additional analysis as to exceptional 
ability was not necessarily in error, we do acknowledge that these statements later in the decision 
create confusion. Therefore, we withdraw the Director's decision inasmuch as it considers the 
Petitioner not demonstrating that he is an individual of exceptional ability to be a negative factor. 
Additionally, we acknowledge that the record does not contain a business plan, as the decision claims, 
and we withdraw the Director's statement to the contrary. We also withdraw the Director's analysis 
as to whether the business entity's existence could be determined through the Director's independent 
searches of "Google net and EDGAR," particularly as the Director did not explain the relevance of the 
EDGAR search. We acknowledge the documentation in the record as to the business entity's 
formation in the state of Florida. While this evidence does not establish any particular level of actual 
business operations, we conclude that it does establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the 
business's formation and existence in the state of Florida as of the date of the document. See Matter 
ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
However, we conclude that the Director did not err by not making a finding regarding the endeavor's 
substantial merit. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the endeavor's national 
importance and did not establish either prong two or prong three of the Dhanasar framework. As each 
of these elements is required to demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver, these findings 
are a sufficient basis for denial. The Petitioner does not cite to a law or policy in support of the claim 
that this constitutes a legal error or that a Director must make a finding as to each required element in 
prong, and because, as we discuss below, this is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not summarize the Director's 
decision as to the second and third prongs here. 
3 
order for a decision to be sufficient. Similarly, regarding the Director's use of pronouns, although we 
acknowledge that the Director used feminine pronouns in several places, in the context of the decision 
overall, this claimed error is, at most, harmless. See generally Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 
336 n.5 (BIA 2021) ( citing cases regarding harmless or scrivener's errors). 
Overall, we recognize the Petitioner's contentions as to the claimed errors in the Director's decision, 
and we conclude that some of these are meritorious. Accordingly, we withdraw those portions of the 
Director's decision, as detailed above. However, following review, we conclude that the decision is 
sufficient and specific enough to provide the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and 
us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i); see also Matter of 
M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must folly explain the reasons for denying 
a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
Moreover, we conduct a de novo review and have considered the evidence in the record in foll. While 
we may not discuss each piece of evidence in the record in our decision, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
We tum now to the Petitioner's specific claims of eligibility under the requisite Dhanasar prongs, 
beginning with whether the Petitioner has established the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its 
potential prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national 
or global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances, may have national importance. Id. Additionally, an 
endeavor that is regionally focused may nevertheless have national importance, such as an endeavor 
that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the evidence, if considered under the preponderance of the 
evidence standard, does demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Specifically, 
the Petitioner asserts that the personal statement, the expert opinion letter, and the articles and studies 
in the record regarding business coaching and business development demonstrate the endeavor's 
national importance. 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Petitioner's personal statement does not sufficiently 
demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The statement describes the 
Petitioner's educational background, his work experience, and the some of his accomplishments in his 
field. The Petitioner also describes in his statement his business coaching services and goals for the 
company he has established. The Petitioner states that through his personalized coaching sessions, he 
explores with his clients "techniques such as market evaluations, competitive analysis, lead generation, 
sales tracking, market research, and assessing business potential." The Petitioner states that he 
empowers his clients to "make informed decisions" and enables them to "unlock their foll potential." 
The Petitioner claims in his statement that through this endeavor, he will "actively contribute to the 
development of a thriving, resilient, and prosperous economy for the United States." The Petitioner 
states that the benefits of his services include increased productivity, retention of talent, increased 
innovation, and a positive "ripple effect" for other organizations and "society as a whole." However, 
personal statement does not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's coaching services will impact the 
field or the population beyond his own clients at a level commensurate with national importance. The 
4 
personal statement does not explain how the Petitioner's approach meaningfully differs from other 
business coaching services, has the potential to be replicated through the field, or otherwise stands to 
have a broad impact. The Petitioner's statement helps demonstrate that the proposed endeavor stands 
to benefit the Petitioner's clients; however, it does not demonstrate that the endeavor stands to have 
broader implications for the business coaching industry or for the economy. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that the opinion letter submitted in response to the request for 
evidence helps demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner states 
that the opinion letter is from "an independent and neutral expert in the field" and provides a "vast 
analysis regarding the economic implications of [the Petitioner's] endeavor." The opinion letter, from 
an associate professor of marketing at I l provides statistics about the 
management consulting industry, the demand for these types of services, the importance of small 
businesses to the U.S. economy, and the benefits of business coaching services to companies and their 
business development. However, these claims relate to management consulting and business 
coaching, and the importance of these industries overall, rather than to the Petitioner's specific 
endeavor. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, 
we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. Although the professor claims that the Petitioner "will use his expertise" to help 
businesses in the United States "improve operations and achieve better productivity and profitability," 
the professor does not describe how the Petitioner's endeavor has the potential to do so at a scale that 
would result in a broad impact on the field or the U.S. economy. The opinion letter does not discuss 
how the specific, proposed endeavor may have national or even global implications that would rise to 
the level of national importance. Id. at 889-90. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. 
Matter ofCaron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion 
or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way 
questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, the opinion letter is of little probative value as it 
primarily repeats the information stated by the Petitioner and conflates the importance and benefits of 
business consulting in general with the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the "probative research" submitted supports the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. The record contains articles and studies related to the impact 
and benefits of business coaching. However, this evidence again relates to the importance of the field 
in general and the industry overall. As noted above, in determining national importance, the relevant 
question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; 
instead, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake." Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. None of the articles discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, its 
potential impact, and how it may have national importance. See id. 
We note that, on appeal, the Petitioner contends that he "submitted approximately three hundred (300) 
pages of documentation establishing a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), which 
was then summarily dismissed by the officer without providing an accurate analysis" ( emphasis in 
5 
original). While the Petitioner provided a significant volume of evidence, eligibility for the benefit 
sought is not determined by the quantity of evidence alone but also the quality. Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 376 (citing Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989)). Even considering 
the evidence in its totality, we conclude that it is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
specific, proposed endeavor has the potential to result in a broad impact as contemplated by Matter of 
Dhanasar. Accordingly, and for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We 
reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the substantial merit of the proposed 
endeavor or second or third Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 
that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the 
ultimate decision); 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 
We withdraw the portions of the Director's decision described above. However, because the Petitioner 
has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework as to national importance, 
we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6