dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 16, 2025 In Re: 35668063 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in business development, 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. 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 does not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 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 (USCTS) 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; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to open and operate a business development enterprise 
specializing in sustainable products. The Director determined that the Petitioner established his 
eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
However, the Director further concluded that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for any of the 
three prongs of the Dhanasar framework, and therefore is not eligible for a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in the determination 
that his proposed endeavor does not rise to the level of national importance. We disagree. Upon de 
novo review, we conclude the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not rise to the level of national 
importance as set forth in the Dhanasar framework. 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Petitioner is a business development director who states he has over 23 years of experience. He 
submitted a foreign diploma and transcripts accompanied by an academic evaluation which states that 
his degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in chemical engineering. In addition, the record 
contains letters evidencing at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and 
we agree. 
B. National Interest Wavier 
1. Substantial Merit 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual 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. Id. The Petitioner 
states that his proposed endeavor is to is to open and operate a business development enterprise 
specializing in sustainable agriculture. He asserts that his company will advance U.S. business and 
technology. The record includes information on the importance of marketing to the success of 
businesses and the important role immigrants play in entrepreneurship in the United States. We 
conclude that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
2. National Importance 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof, instead 
imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applying the law. He asserts the Director did not give 
"due regard" to the evidence submitted, specifically: the resume outlining his experience; the business 
plan describing his credentials, expertise, and accomplishments; evidence of his work in the field; 
letters of recommendation; and industry reports and articles demonstrating the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor and the shortage of professionals with his profile in the field. Upon de novo 
review, we conclude that the Director properly analyzed the evidence to evaluate the Petitioner's 
eligibility by a preponderance of evidence and the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed 
endeavor satisfies the national importance element of Dhanasar's first prong, as discussed below. 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's experience in the field of the endeavor, his past experience 
does not establish national importance under the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner begins the 
appeal brief' s section entitled "The Proposed Endeavor's National Importance" by discussing his over 
23 years of experience "covering various facets of business management and strategic planning" and 
stating that he is "exceptionally positioned to lead this venture." In determining whether the proposed 
endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. While past experience can be persuasive for prong two analysis, whether the Petitioner 
is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, it does not establish the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor as it does not speak to the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor is "poised to generate significant financial and 
employment benefits for the United States." The record states, his company will result in total sales 
of $305,100 in its first year of operation and $718,930 in its fifth year of operation. In addition, the 
Petitioner states his proposed endeavor is projected to make substantial tax contributions which he 
states reflect his company's "commitment to supporting public finances and contributing to the 
country's overall economic health." However, the record does not provide support for the stated 
financial projections. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without further explanation of the basis for these 
projections, we cannot assess whether the stated estimates are credible, and therefore, we conclude 
that the Petitioner has not met his burden to establish that his proposed endeavor stands to have 
"substantial positive economic effects" that would be commensurate with national importance. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
Additionally, the Petitioner contends that his company will directly create 12 jobs ( of which, 11 are 
part-time jobs) by the end of its fifth year of operation and 376 indirect jobs; stating that this, 
"significant job creation underscores [the company's] potential to ... boost economic development, 
particularly in regions that may be economically depressed." Dhanasar states that a proposed 
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. Here, the record does not establish his company's future staffing 
levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic effects. Specifically, the record 
does not support that the direct creation of 12 additional jobs in this sector or the above stated sales or 
tax revenue generated by the company will have a substantial economic benefit commensurate with 
3 
the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. In addition, there is 
insufficient information about the 376 indirect jobs. For example, the record includes information 
about how this number was calculated using the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS TT); 
but does not discuss how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will create these jobs, what types ofjobs 
will be created, or where they will be located. Furthermore, the record does not establish that the 
Petitioner will be creating jobs in areas that are economically depressed as he states. The company 
will be headquartered in IFlorida and intends to first serve California, and eventually 
Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. However, the record does 
not specify where his company will operate in these various states to establish a substantial positive 
economic effect to an economically depressed area. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that his proposed endeavor is of national importance because 
of the important role immigrants play in the success of entrepreneurship in the United States; and the 
economic impact of their contributions. While we acknowledge their collective impact, this does not 
further a claim that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will have a broader impact to his field. 
The record also contains an expert opinion letter, however when discussing the national importance 
of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the author focuses on the Petitioner's experience and his 
knowledge of Brazil's economy. He discusses the importance of U.S. companies doing business with 
and investing in Latin America; which does not align with the record and the Petitioner's stated 
proposed endeavor. Therefore, this letter does not further the Petitioner's assertion of the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar states that an undertaking may have national importance because it has national or even 
global implications within a particular field. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The record does not 
establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have national or even global implications within 
its field. The Petitioner states in his definitive statement that in its first three years, he will impact the 
lives of 3600 people. He states he will influence global standards and encourage other nations to adopt 
similar initiatives. While we note his intentions and his proposed endeavor have merit, the Petitioner's 
statements alone are not enough to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. As 
stated above, a petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Here too, his company may impact his direct clients, 
however that does not constitute national importance as set forth in the Dhanasar framework. Without 
additional supporting evidence of his proposed endeavor's broader prospective impact, we conclude 
the impact would be limited to the Petitioner's company and its clients and therefore does not rise to 
the level of national importance. 
While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered the 
record in its entirety. As the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the 
Petitioner is ineligible for a national interest waiver, we need not reach, and therefore reserve, the 
remaining prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per 
curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are 
unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that he 
is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5