dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22678627 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 26, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business development director, 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 EB-2 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 although the record 
established that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, he had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor 
certification, would be 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 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 establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203 (b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion, 2 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the 
noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. In denying the petition, the Director determined that the record did not satisfy any 
of the three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework. For the reasons discussed below, 
we concur with the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer is warranted. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining whether 
the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
The Petitioner stated that she intends to continue her career in the United States as a business 
development director. According to her professional plan and statement, she will "advise U.S. 
companies on how to properly plan, direct, and coordinate their business operations for optimal 
business development in the U.S., Brazil, and Latin America." She further stated that she will 
"contribute significantly to the corporate sector, helping U.S. businesses improve their strategies and 
practices." She indicated that she will help U.S. companies seize new market and investment 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 T&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
opportunities, and noted that the endeavor will potentially impact the United States in the following 
ways: 
• Facilitate cross-border transactions in terms of business development, product 
or service sales, negotiations and projects in the US, Brazil, and Latin America; 
• Strategically manage and secure contracts and partnerships for U.S. companies; 
• Optimize company sales, product, and business operational effectiveness, 
efficiency, profitability and compliance with laws and industry regulations; and 
• Generate U.S. tax revenue and create American jobs. 
The Petitioner also submitted opinion letters and industry articles and reports in support of her 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) asking the Petitioner to provide a detailed description 
of the proposed endeavor and why it has substantial merit and is of national importance. In response, 
the Petitioner supplemented the record with an updated statement and a business plan for her proposed 
U.S. company, identified as 'The Company," which she states will be engaged in business process 
improvement (BPI) and business process management. According to her plan, her company will offer 
BPI services to U.S. clients by developing a comprehensive business strategy that will ensure efficient 
operations and maximum sales. The Petitioner further indicated that her company will off er high 
quality innovative solutions targeting a wide array of different companies, and will primarily target 
call centers, specifically debt collection call centers. The Petitioner also stated that the company would 
provide a variety of IT management consulting services including implementing software and 
establishing online operations. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated 
that her endeavor had substantial merit or was of national importance. Regarding the substantial merit 
of the endeavor, the Director noted inconsistencies in the Petitioner's claims and evidence pertaining 
to the exact nature of the proposed endeavor, which precluded a determination that the endeavor had 
substantial merit in an area such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, 
education, the art, or social sciences. Regarding the national importance of her endeavor, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that her undertaking would have broader 
implications on a national or global scale, or have substantial positive effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. The Director noted that based on the Petitioner's claims, her endeavor 
would be restricted to one company, and that she had not specifically articulated the nature of her 
company's work or whether her work through her proposed company would rise to a level of national 
importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, the 
substantial merit and national importance of her work, and that the Director's decision was in error 
because it "applied a stricter standard" of proof With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, 
a petitioner must establish that he meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I& N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a 
petitioner must show that what he claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine 
whether a petitioner has met her burden under the preponderance standard, USCIS considers not only 
3 
the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. 
Id. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
The Petitioner also argues on appeal that contrary to the Director's determination, the impacts of her 
contributions are not limited to her proposed company. She asserts that she will lead teams to execute 
business development projects in a variety of areas including sales, project, product, and vendor 
management, and that her ability to manage and direct such projects will substantially enhance the 
U.S. economy. She also asserts that her professional network in Latin America will allow her to 
identify viable opportunities for business development via cross-border contracts, and thus 
demonstrates the substantial merit of her endeavor as it will have a widespread prospective impact on 
the U.S. business industry and economy. 
Regarding the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor, we agree with the Director's determination 
that the nature of the proposed endeavor is unclear. The Petitioner identifies her proposed endeavor 
as providing business consulting services to U.S. clients and companies, but indicates that such 
services encompass a variety of areas, including IT marketing services, the targeting and possible 
acquisition of debt collection call centers, and the execution of cross-border contracts. She also 
proposes to establish her own company through which to provide business consulting services. 
Overall, we have insufficient information concerning the proposed endeavor with which to determine 
whether it has both substantial merit and national importance because the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has not been clearly defined. The Petitioner has not submitted persuasive evidence to support 
a finding of substantial merit. The Petitioner bears the burden to both affirmatively establish eligibility 
under the Dhanasar framework, of which substantial merit is one piece, and establish her eligibility 
by a preponderance of the evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we 
further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]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. 
The Petitioner highlighted her past successes in Brazil in order to suggest that her proposed endeavor 
in the field of business consulting will have a similar impact, and asserts that her past experience and 
expertise will allow her to develop and maintain new clients and relationships which will ultimately 
increase the flow of money into the U.S. on a national level and increase the gross domestic product 
(GDP). While we acknowledge these claims, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to 
substantiate them. For instance, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how her proposed projects will 
be on such a scale as to impact the national economy directly or indirectly. Similarly, she has not 
explained how her endeavor will create a revenue stream so substantial as to affect the GDP or tax 
revenue. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact 
without providing evidence to corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support her assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
4 
To further evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. While 
the Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide valuable consulting and project management 
services for her future clients, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate 
that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 
Specifically, she has not provided data showing sales or income projections to demonstrate that her 
proposed consulting activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits in any particular region 
(such as Florida) or in the United States. While the Petitioner claimed that her business development 
services will allow U.S. companies to expand into foreign markets and that she can secure their 
success, she has not provided details concerning how she would do this nor has she identified any U.S. 
clients or companies seeking business in Brazil or Latin America. Without sufficient information or 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, 
the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the 
Petitioner's projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. See id. at 890. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. Id. For instance, she has not offered evidence in the form of projected staffing 
levels or hiring plans to demonstrate that her proposed company would employ a significant 
population of workers in an economically depressed area or that her endeavor would offer a U.S. 
region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Additionally, the Petitioner repeatedly references her experience, education, and knowledge 
concerning business and marketing as the reason she will be able to provide these benefits to the United 
States, and points to recommendation letters attesting to her background and qualifications. However, 
the Petitioner's personal and professional qualifications relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. The issue 
here is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has substantial merit 
and national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. We 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 is unnecessary 
to the results they reach"); 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 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. 
5 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6