dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the
and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office 
Services 
In Re: 26578599 Date: MAY 3, 2023 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur and business developer, 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 the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that 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. 
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 l&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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Once a 
petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary waiver 
of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 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; 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• 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 Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner initially indicated that he intends to work in the 
United States "as an entrepreneur and business developer." He explained that he plans to "create and/or 
lead businesses and their managerial aspects, creating and implementing solutions and procedures to 
ensure the most profitable and cost-effective operations, while meeting the needs of U.S. communities or 
companies." The Petitioner further stated that his "work for U.S. companies, providing business 
development services and advice, can help U.S. companies form key partnerships with companies in Latin 
America - with which I have easy access - so that they can overcome any barriers, and establish a 
profitable operation in Latin America." He listed three ongoing business projects in the United States: 
his partnership in a company that leases premium and luxury motor homes, his intention to open a 
motorhome and boat storage company that also offers cleaning services, and his plan to open a company 
that serves as an authorized reseller and maintenance provider of Motorino motorbikes and electric 
scooters. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided documentation relating to his formation of _____ 
including its "Florida Profit Corporation" registration and Internal Revenue Service Employer 
Identification Number. He also submitted a "Share Purchase Agreement" between! 
("Seller") andl • I("Purchaser"). This Agreement stated: 'The Seller agrees to sell and 
the Purchaser agrees to purchase all the rights, title, interest, and property of the Seller in the Share for 
an aggregate purchase price of$11,350.00. A fixed sum of$85,125.00 will be payable on closing of 
this Agreement." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner indicated that his proposed 
endeavor is aimed at his three ongoing business projects. With respect to his luxury motor home leasing 
company partnership, the Petitioner stated that he is "providing consulting services and preparing the 
company to leverage exponential growth in this business segment for the next few years. We are currently 
studying the opening of new branches, and analyzing smaller companies to be acquired, to achieve faster 
and more consistent growth." The Petitioner also claimed that this company will "be responsible for 
adding U.S. jobs to the country. Currently, the company has 3 people working directly, and several others 
providing outsourced services.2 We project that during the busy season (end of year), we will need to 
hire additional employees to meet demand." He further asserted that "[e]ach branch should have around 
6 to 10 jobs, and another 5 to 8 indirect jobs." The Petitioner, however, did not elaborate on these staffing 
2 The record does not include company financial statements or federal tax returns to corroborate his partnership and 
business growth claims. 
2 
projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees. Nor did not 
adequately explain how these staffing forecasts were calculated. 
Regarding his motorhome and boat storage company, the Petitioner stated that he is "currently focusing 
my work on the market study process, where I am preparing strategic plans, and the financial structure 
for the opening of the business. . . . Once we choose the land from the options identified, I can finalize 
the strategic planning part of the endeavor." 3 He further asserted that this project will also "increase 
employment opportunities for U.S. workers. Each storage in operation will have to have a business 
manager, a sales and customer service support, and also 5 to 10 people who will take care of the 
maintenance, washing and cleaning of the stored motor homes and boats." The Petitioner, however, did 
not elaborate on these staffing projections, offer evidence supporting the need for these additional 
employees, or adequately explain how these staffing forecasts were calculated. 
With regard to his Motorino motorbike and electric scooter company, the Petitioner asserted: "In this 
project, which is in the planning stage, I intend to open a company to serve as the authorized reseller and 
maintenance provider of the Italian brand, Motorino, which already operates in the Brazilian market." He 
further stated that he is "conducting a market study, drafting a business plan, financial planning, market 
planning, and company implementation. The only part that will be outsourced will be the import and 
approval part of the products in the United States."4 In addition, the Petitioner indicated that this project 
"would generate 8 to 12 jobs for U.S. workers .... The plan is to open 6 franchises in 2024, which would 
generate between 24-36 jobs for U.S. workers. In 2025, we plan to open 12 more franchises, which will 
generate an additional 48 to 72 jobs for U.S. workers. Again, the Petitioner did not elaborate on these 
staffing projections, provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees, or 
adequately explain how these staffing forecasts were calculated. 
The record includes information about foreign direct investment in the United States, the benefits of 
expansion into foreign markets, the value of international trade and investment, the ways global 
investment boosts the U.S. economy, international growth at mid-cap companies, Latin America's 
promise as a business destination, the decrease in Chinese investment in the United States, the ways 
the effects of shocks to local labor demand on local labor market outcomes vary with initial local 
economic conditions, and the value of entrepreneurship to the U.S. economy. In addition, the 
Petitioner provided articles discussing small business growth through international trade, developing 
a business growth strategy, the benefits of foreign direct investment, international trade as a growth 
opportunity for U.S. retailers, business trends resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the decrease 
in foreign direct investment in the United States in 2017, the value of strategic foresight capabilities 
in global investment, the benefit of small businesses to local economies, and small businesses as the 
foundation for economies worldwide. He also submitted information about expanding a small 
business abroad, the International Trade Administration, the benefits of international trade, activities 
of affiliates of foreign multinational enterprises, the advantages of establishing a local business entity 
in Latin America, the hidden costs of global expansion, the benefits of entrepreneurship in economic 
development, small business owners' effect on the local economy, the ways small businesses drive the 
U.S. economy, the value and role of an entrepreneur, and employment generation as an economic 
3 The record does not include evidence to corroborate the Petitioner's claims. 
4 The record does not include evidence to corroborate the Petitioner's claims. 
3 
recovery program . The record therefore supports the Director 's determination that the Petitioner 's 
proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
In the decision denying the petition , the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that his undertaking stands "to impact the industry or field more broadly." The Director 
also indicated that the Petitioner had not shown his proposed work has broader implications in the field, 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or other substantial positive economic effects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor will contribute to U.S. gross domestic 
product and increase the number of American jobs. He asserts that his undertaking involves creating 
"jobs for U.S. workers" and therefore it "will produce substantial positive economic effects for the United 
States." The Petitioner further states that his "endeavor, which will require the employment of U.S. 
workers, will provide these benefits throughout the country. This is because the hiring of any number of 
U.S. workers produces these economic benefits." He also argues that "as an owner of multiple small 
businesses in the country, [the Petitioner] will be responsible for significant economic benefits that are 
produced by small business owners." 
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 "[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. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to develop and operate three businesses, he has not offered 
sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate t hat the prospective impact of his proposed 
endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's 
teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not 
impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his 
proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his companies' business operations to impact 
his field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance . 
Furthermore , the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. Specifically, he has not shown that his company's future staffing levels and 
business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States. While 
the Petitioner claims that his three projects have growth potential, he has not presented evidence 
demonstrating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertakings would 
reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In 
addition, although the Petitioner asserts that his endeavor stands to "increase the number of American 
4 
jobs," he has not offered sufficient evidence that the areas where his companies will operate are 
economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers in those areas, or 
that his endeavor would offer any particular U.S. region or its population a substantial economic 
benefit through employment levels or business activity. 
Additionally , the Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor "will broadly enhance cultural or artistic 
enrichment" through his operation of a motorhome business that "will promote tourism within the 
United States." He states: "Traveling to different areas will provide a sense of discovery, intercultural 
understanding , and enriching experiences. Americans will gain a better understanding of the country, 
familiarize themselves with cultural diversity, traditions , customs, and learn about different lifestyles , 
etc." The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that his operation of a motor home leasing 
company stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company 's customers to enhance societal welfare 
more broadly at a level indicative of national importance. 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner 's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dis positive 
of the Petitioner 's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding 
his eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar. 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 he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion . The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed . 
5