dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 21, 2024 In Re: 33360658 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business development specialist, 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. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner demonstrated his eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional but 
did not establish that a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. 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 of Chawathe, 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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are 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)(A) of the Act. 
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. While neither the 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 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
• 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. The Petitioner provided evidence that he possesses the 
foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree in business administration from a Brazilian university and at 
least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the field. The record therefore 
supports the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner holds an "advanced degree" as defined at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The sole issue to be addressed on appeal is whether the Petitioner established 
that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not clearly identify 
what his proposed endeavor entails and did not satisfy any of the three prongs outlined in the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision contains erroneous 
conclusions of law and fact and does not reflect consideration of all submitted evidence. He maintains 
that he meets all three prongs set forth in Dhanasar and otherwise established that a discretionary 
waiver of the job offer requirement would be in the national interest. 
For the reasons provided below, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the national importance of his proposed endeavor and is therefore ineligible for the 
requested discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. While we will not 
address every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
As noted, the Petitioner has a bachelor's degree in the field of business administration, awarded in 
2011. The record reflects that he also completed two post-graduate MBA certification programs in 
Brazil. According to the Petitioner's resume, he worked for a Brazilian clothing business in the 
positions of commercial representative, sales supervisor, and sales manager between 2011 and 2020, 
and subsequently worked as an independent business consultant in Brazil, with clients in various retail 
sectors between 2020 and 2022. At the time of filing in October 2023, the Petitioner indicated that he 
had recently commenced employment as the general manager of a Florida-based natural stone 
company. 
In a professional plan submitted at the time of filing, the Petitioner provided the following description 
of his proposed endeavor, which he indicated would be based in Florida: 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
I intend to perform as a Business Development Specialist and provide my specialized 
services in sales, marketing, logistics and project management to impact the field of 
natural stones, textiles, and clothing in the U.S. Due to my extensive professional 
experience in [these industries], I intend to focus my contributions in these sectors first, 
while planning to serve other industries in the futures as well ... [.] 
The Petitioner stated that his services would include facilitating the import and export of natural stone 
products between Brazilian and American companies; market research and analysis; business strategy 
development and implementation; client relationship management and networking; merger and 
acquisition advisory services; and project management and coordination. He indicated his intent to 
"hire qualified and talented U.S. workers" to assist in providing services to various clients, which 
implied his intent to open his own business in the business consulting field. 2 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated he would offer services 
"within American companies in the natural stone and civil construction industries": 
I intend to perform as a Business Development Specialist ... with a primary focus on 
shaping marketing, sales, and logistics activities for U.S.-based companies to enhance 
the scalability within the dynamic civil construction and natural stone markets, 
ultimately leveraging affordable housing efforts in the United States. 
A central component of my initiative involves fostering strategic partnerships with 
Brazilian natural stone companies and key players in logistics . . . . I am to leverage 
these strategic partnerships for U.S.-based companies I work with, not envisioning to 
establish a self-owned business in the country. Through these collaborations, I am set 
to facilitate the import and export of natural stones, including granite, marble, quartzite, 
limestone, and others for construction materials in the United States. 
The Director observed that the Petitioner's professional plans did not provide sufficient insight into 
his intended activities. The initial plan indicated he would be hiring workers to assist him with 
providing services to companies in several industries and therefore suggested he would likely be 
operating his own consulting business. The updated plan indicated that the Petitioner intends to focus 
solely on the natural stone and civil construction industry, did not mention any plans to hire workers 
or start a business, and did not clarify whether he intended to work for a U.S. employer in the natural 
stone industry or work as an individual consultant for companies in this field. On appeal, the Petitioner 
does not address the Director's observations or clarify in which capacity he intends to work in the 
United States. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, substantial merit, and national importance, focuses on the 
specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be 
2 As noted by the Director, the initial professional plan also including several references to the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor to work as an "IT Specialist." The Petitioner, in response to the Director's request for evidence, indicated that 
any references to this unrelated proposed endeavor were typographical errors. 
3 
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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The evidence in the record cites market and industry data describing the importance of trade relations 
between the United States and Brazil, the growth of the natural stone market, the rising costs of 
construction materials and the impact of these costs on the availability of affordable housing. We find 
the evidence sufficient to establish the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to 
provide business development services in this sector. However, simply working in an area with 
substantial merit is insufficient to meet Dhanasar 's first prong. Our focus in considering national 
importance is not on the industry itself; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposed to undertake" and its "potential prospective impact." Id. 
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, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." 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. Finally, we will consider evidence that a proposed endeavor has the potential 
to broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, and evidence it would impact a 
matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of 
national initiatives. 
Here, the record does not contain information or evidence regarding any projected direct economic 
impacts or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's future work within the context of his specific 
proposed endeavor. While the Petitioner submitted a professional plan outlining the types of services 
he may provide to U.S. businesses, he did not provide a business plan or any other plans or projections 
explaining the expected scope of his intended activities, nor did he otherwise support his general claim 
that his proposed endeavor would have potential positive economic effects at a level commensurate 
with national importance. 
After indicating in his initial professional plan that he intends to hire and train U.S. workers to assist 
him with the provision of business development services, he indicated in response to the RFE that he 
would not be starting his own business and did not mention any hiring plans. Therefore, he has 
sufficiently explained how his proposed endeavor to work as a business development specialist has 
the significant potential to employ U.S. workers. We have also considered whether the Petitioner 
demonstrated that his proposed endeavor would have other substantial positive economic effects 
particularly in an economically distressed area. Both submitted professional plans indicate "the 
proposed endeavor will be performed primarily in Florida" but state that through travel, the Petitioner 
"will have the opportunity to engage with and benefit economically distressed areas across different 
states and regions, contributing to their overall development and growth." The record offers no 
additional details or support for the Petitioner's claim that his proposed endeavor would have 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects in an 
economically depressed area. 
4 
The Petitioner through his own statements and through counsel, focuses primarily on the indirect 
economic benefits of his proposed endeavor, noting it will "serve as a catalyst for enhancing the 
efficiency and competitiveness of local companies in the natural stone and construction sectors" and 
"create a ripple effect of growth, job creation, and economic improvement on a national scale." The 
Petitioner further maintains that "the cycle of economic growth initiated by the success of this proposal 
extends beyond the natural stone and construction sectors, influencing related industries and local 
economies." However, he does not offer evidence to support these general assertions or otherwise 
support his claim that his provision of business development services to Florida-based companies in 
the natural stone industry will have such far-reaching effects. While we do not doubt that the services 
the Petitioner intends to provide could stimulate local economic activity at some level, it is his burden 
to show that the economic effects of the proposed endeavor will be "substantial" and at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Here, despite the Petitioner's claim that his endeavor will 
act as a "pivotal force for economic growth" on a regional or national basis, the record does not contain 
sufficient relevant or probative evidence showing that the direct or indirect economic benefits of his 
proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. 26 T&N Dec. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director overlooked evidence that his proposed endeavor 
has national or even global implications within his field. Specifically, he emphasizes his endeavor's 
"potential to influence specific industries and its far-reaching impact on fundamental aspects of the 
business field." The Petitioner indicates that his endeavor will introduce "cutting edge tools and 
methodologies such as market segmentation, SWOT analysis, and SMART goals," will "innovate the 
field of natural stones," will act as "a model for effective business development within the U.S.," and 
will potentially establish "a global best practice that can be emulated in similar industries worldwide." 
The Petitioner also emphasizes that his proposed endeavor positions him as "a significant driver for 
positive change with far-reaching consequences." Finally, the Petitioner claims that, based on his 
education and experience, he is positioned to "pioneer new techniques with far reaching implications," 
and to "transform" multiple industries in the United States. 
However, these broad claims regarding the innovations the Petitioner will offer and the potential 
influence he will wield across multiple industries are not supported by sufficient evidence. The record 
does not document the Petitioner's claimed introduction of innovations in his field or support his 
assertion that his proposed business development work with Florida-based natural stone companies 
would provide him with the platform to influence or transform business development practices in the 
industry at large or influence "global best practice in similar industries worldwide." 
The record reflects that the Petitioner possesses considerable practical experience in business strategy 
development, sales, market research and related marketing tools and methodologies, and that he had 
approximately two months of experience in the natural stone industry at the time of filing. However, 
it does not establish how his proposed endeavor would contribute advancements, improvements or 
other influence within the business development field or the industry in which he intends to work, or 
otherwise support his claims that his proposed activities would have broader implications within these 
fields consistent with Dhanasar. 26 T&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner indicates no plans to disseminate 
his methodologies or business development strategies and it is therefore unclear how his activities as 
a business development specialist would innovate the field or influence national business models or 
global best practices, as claimed. 
5 
Further, while the Petitioner provided letters from two Florida-based importers of natural stones and 
a Brazilian natural stone exporter indicating an interest in working with him, it is unclear how the 
implications of his work would extend beyond the operations of his potential clients or partners to 
have national or even global implications in the field. A reference letter from the CEO of a Florida­
based natural stone importer and distributor praises the Petitioner's skills in the business development 
field but offers insufficient explanation for the author's assertion that the Petitioner is a "visionary" 
who is poised to develop and introduce improvements to the North American natural stone market. In 
fact, other statements in the record indicate that the United States is already a major importer of 
Brazilian natural stone, and it is unclear how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would "transform" 
this industry. 
In Dhanasar we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not extend beyond his students to impact his field more 
broadly. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Similarly, the evidence submitted here does not sufficiently 
support the Petitioner's claim that his proposed endeavor to collaborate with U.S. companies in the 
natural stone industry would offer tangible improvements, advancements, or other broad impacts in 
his field or have implications that reach beyond his specific clients, employers, or partners in the 
industry. 
We have also considered the Petitioner's claim that his proposed endeavor would impact areas that are 
the subject of national government initiatives. Specifically, he asserts that his endeavor "aligns with 
the recognized priorities" of U.S. government entities, such as the U.S. Department of Commerce, 
which emphasizes the importance of the international trade sector as a contributor to the nation's 
economic resilience and sustained development, and the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, which "focuses on affordable housing as a matter of national importance." However, 
the fact that an individual will work in a field that is generally adjacent to the subject of national 
initiatives is not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of their work. The Petitioner must 
still demonstrate the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor and how it impacts those 
national initiatives. Here, the Petitioner did not provide evidence that his work with U.S. natural stone 
companies will be carried out on a scale that would have a substantial prospective impact on 
international trade relations with Brazil, the availability of affordable housing in the United States, or 
on any specific national initiatives aimed at these areas. 
The record also contains statistics citing an increasing demand for qualified business management 
professionals in the United States and a shortage of qualified individuals to meet this demand. 
However, this shortage is likewise insufficient to demonstrate the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the work 
of an individual business development specialist nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent 
decision. Further, the Petitioner has not shown how his employment as a business development 
specialist would have a significant impact on addressing the talent shortage in the field. 
We note that the Petitioner attributes the likely success and potentially broad national implications of 
his proposed endeavor, in part, to his educational background and experience in the business 
development field. He also submitted recommendation letters from former colleagues and clients who 
are familiar with his prior work and professional accomplishments. The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, 
and prior work in his field, however, relate primarily to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
6 
which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The 
issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake in the United States has 
national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. The submitted recommendation letters, which 
praise the Petitioner's professional skills and qualifications, do not offer insight into the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor to work as a business development specialist in the United States. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter from a business 
professor at I I who evaluated his eligibility under the three prongs of the Dhanasar 
framework. In addressing Dhanasar's first prong, the author significantly focuses on the business 
development specialist occupation, the economic impact of the management consulting industry, the 
importance of small businesses to the U.S. economy, economic relations between the Brazil and the 
United States, as well as the Petitioner's prior experience and qualifications to work in the general 
field of business development. While the professor indicates that the United States would benefit from 
the Petitioner's expertise and skills as business development specialist, he does not sufficiently address 
the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor to work in the natural stone industry, its prospective 
substantial economic impact, or any broader implications of the Petitioner's work in the field of his 
proposed endeavor. 
We observe that users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, 
professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of 
Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r. 1988). However, users is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter of 
D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445,460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be given expert 
testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). Here, much of the content 
of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
For the reasons provided above, the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the 
national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of Dhanasar. 
Accordingly, the record does not establish that he merits, as a matter of discretion, the requested 
national interest waiver. 
e. Reserved Issues 
Our decision regarding the proposed endeavor's national importance resolves this appeal. 
Accordingly, we need not reach, and thus reserve, the Petitioner's appellate arguments that he is well 
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and that, overall, granting the waiver would benefit the 
United States, as required by Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
24, 25 ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 
unnecessary to the results they reached"); see also Matter ofL-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). 
7 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8