dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 27, 2024 In Re: 31283827 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for 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 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 establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of 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 that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner's initial 
statement provided with his petition indicated that he "intends to benefit the United States by investing 
in U.S. based companies, and developing their businesses, as well as establishing and developing [his] 
own business in the United States." 2 The Petitioner stated that he would "introduce high level products 
into the U.S. market that will generate revenue and economic growth for supply chain companies and 
venues in various industries." In his second statement, provided in response to the Director's request 
for evidence, the Petitioner stated his intent to "advance [his] proposed endeavor, by using [his] 
expertise and knowledge working as a Business Development Director. [He] will help U.S. businesses 
- especially [his] own - to revitalize their existing brands, modernize their business operations, expand 
their consumer base, and develop partnerships with supply chain companies." The Petitioner stated 
that his work will be done through his various business ventures, including ________ 
which is "responsible for growth planning in the areas of residential construction and real estate," 
I Ihis Brazilian company through which he is "working to enter the 
U.S. mineral water market," and which "provides expertise in assisting clients to 
navigate the rapidly expanding [Florida] real estate market." 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not the 
national importance, of the proposed endeavor. In determining national importance, the relevant 
question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, 
we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Although the Petitioner contends that submission of articles on topics such as entrepreneurialism, 
foreign direct investment, and business recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic, were intended 
to "provide background and context through which" his proposed endeavor would be understood, and 
that it was provided to "guide the reviewing officer to arrive to the ultimate conclusion" that his 
endeavor is of national importance, the matter here is not whether these topics or similarly related 
subjects, are nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of 
his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his services as a Business Development Director in the 
I I Florida area. Likewise, the submission of these articles covers a wide range of topics, rather 
than establishing the national importance of his particular professional services or business. 3 
In Dhanasar, we 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 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the 
national importance part. 
2 
economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. 
at 890. 
Moreover, the Petitioner stresses his "accomplishments, background, and experience," as well as 
evidence demonstrating his "incredibly high level of success as a business developer and 
entrepreneur." However, the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of 
the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national 
importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
Similarly, the Petitioner takes issue with the Director's characterization of a letter from 
In the Petitioner's second statement provided in response to the RFE, he stated that he 
had "brought a US$ 100 million Brazilian investment fund, calledl Ito acquire old properties 
in the _________________ [Florida] area, and build over 1.5 million 
properties for resale." The Director pointed to the letter from _____ which indicated that 
the Petitioner was introduced to them byl Iwho had already been a client of I 
The letter from _____ _.indicated that the Petitioner was hired byl Iand he was then 
invited "to serve as their ambassador in the U.S.," and that the Petitioner's work with these two 
companies has resulted in $9M in real estate investment. Although the letter, among other letters 
submitted and included in the record, discussed the impact of the Petitioner's work in the field, the 
letters discuss his particular services to each respective client, but do not show the broader impact of 
his work rather than limited to his specific clients. Moreover, the letters cover the Petitioner's prior 
work and accomplishments and relate more to the second prong rather than the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Id. at 890. 
Further, the Petitioner contends that he presented an expert opinion letter from 
who found his proposed endeavor to have national importance. While the letter opines on the potential 
benefits of the commercial real estate industry and the mineral water market, the letter does not explain 
how the Petitioner's involvement in these industries has broader implications for our country. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. Here, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his businesses would largely influence the field and rise to the 
level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. The record does not show through supporting documentation how his endeavor sufficiently 
extends beyond his prospective clients, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not show how his businesses have significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation. While the Petitioner 
continues to make general claims that he "will inevitably create jobs for U.S. workers," the Petitioner 
did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how his particular proposed endeavor would have any 
projected U.S. economic impact or job creation. Without such evidence, the record does not show any 
benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from his services or position would reach 
the level of "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
3 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis ofthe Petitioner's eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 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. 
4 See INS v. Bagamashad. 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessmy to the ultimate decision); see also Matter olL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
4