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: 30173233 
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. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2) , 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner qualifies 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 and the record supports the Director's conclusion. 2 
Accordingly, 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. 
The Director found the Petitioner demonstrated the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor under 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework but concluded he did not establish the proposed endeavor's 
national importance, that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and that, on balance, 
it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement. 
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 the national importance of his proposed endeavor and is therefore ineligible for the requested 
national interest waiver. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have 
reviewed and considered each one. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner has a bachelor's degree in administration and completed two post-graduate MBA 
certificate programs. The record indicates that he worked for a Brazilian clothing business as a 
commercial representative, sales supervisor, and sales manager between 2011 and 2020. From 2020 
until 2022, the Petitioner worked as an independent business consultant in Brazil, serving clients in 
various retail sectors. 
In a professional plan submitted at the time of filing, the Petitioner described his proposed endeavor 
as follows: 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 The Petitioner demonstrated that he completed the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree at a Brazilian university and 
that he has at least five years of progressive work experience in a field related to his degree. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
( defining "advanced degree"). 
2 
Considering my unique set of skills as a Business Development Specialist, my proposed 
endeavor is to offer my extensive experience in commercial and administrative areas, 
sales processes, and operational management. I will deploy my impressive professional 
experience in areas of multi-brand retail, franchise network, outlets, wholesale, and 
own stores, promote efficiency, increase profitability and revenue, and enable business 
growth for American companies. 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided an updated professional plan in 
which he indicates his intent to "perform as a Business Development Specialist and provide my 
specialized services in Strategic Business Management, Sales Strategical Planning, People 
Development and Customer Service to impact the sales field through innovation in the U.S." The 
response to the RFE also clarified the Petitioner's intent to initially focus on the textile, food and 
beverage, and automotive industries, based on his previous experience working with employers or 
consulting with clients in these areas. 
The two plans are similar in content and include lengthy descriptions of specific services the Petitioner 
intends to offer to U.S. companies in several areas related to business development. While the 
Petitioner does not directly state whether he intends to work as an independent consultant or to operate 
his own consulting company, both professional plans generally reflect his intent to work with multiple 
companies in a consulting capacity as a business development specialist. 
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 
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 T&N Dec. at 889. 
The evidence in the record cites market and industry data describing the importance of small and 
medium-sized enterprises and retail businesses as key drivers of job creation and revenue in the U.S. 
economy. We find the evidence sufficient to establish the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor to provide business development services to companies in these sectors. However, simply 
working in an area with substantial merit is insufficient to meet the national importance element of 
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 
3 
to broadly enhance societal welfare, and evidence it would impact a matter that a government entity 
has described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives. 
The Petitioner, through his own statements and through counsel, has made general claims regarding 
the substantial positive economic effects of his proposed endeavor, many of which simply emphasize 
the economic results businesses may achieve by implementing successful business development 
strategies. For example, the Petitioner stated in response to the RFE that "Business Development 
Specialists have the ability to provide indispensable services to American businesses and therefore 
stimulate U.S. economic growth and activity." He asserted that his provision of the services outlined 
in his professional plan "will cause a positive and potential impact on the U.S. economy by providing 
better Business and management of finances, control of risks, and great financial health for the U.S. 
businesses and investors, which will affect the entire economy and ... [create] new job opportunities 
for U.S. workers." While the revenue and employment generated directly and indirectly by the 
business consulting industry as a whole may be important to the U.S. economy, the Petitioner must 
still demonstrate that the economic effects of his specific proposed endeavor will be "substantial." 
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. Therefore, he has not sufficiently explained how his proposed endeavor to work 
as a business development specialist has the significant potential to employ U.S. workers, nor has he 
stated that he will operate the proposed endeavor in an economically depressed area. 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 other projections explaining the expected scope of 
his intended consulting activities or otherwise support his general claim that his proposed endeavor 
would have potential positive economic effects at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner instead maintained that his proposed endeavor would have widespread "ripple effects," 
noting that his work will "not only benefit the companies he will work with in the United States but 
also ... have a wide-ranging impact on American businesses" that would extend to "every other field 
in the U.S.," and "ultimately positively impact the entire nation's economy." He further indicated that 
he "will potentially generate economic growth and contribute toward the advance and optimization of 
the U.S. market, "increase America's prosperity," and fuel "exponential economic expansion and the 
emergence of new employment opportunities for American workers." However, he does not offer a 
sufficient evidentiary basis for these broad statements or otherwise support his assertions that his 
provision of consulting services as a business development specialist would potentially have such far­
reaching impacts. 
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 any claimed economic effects of the 
proposed endeavor will be "substantial" and at a level commensurate with national importance. Here, 
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 I&N Dec. at 890. 
We have also considered the Petitioner's claim that his proposed endeavor would impact an area that 
is the subject of national government initiatives. He specifically references the Biden Administration's 
4 
commitment to helping small businesses through the 2021 American Rescue Plan and other initiatives, 
noting that such government actions have enabled many small businesses recover from the COVID-
19 pandemic. The Petitioner asserts that his proposed business development activities will "honor the 
Biden-Harris Administration's commitment to helping America's new small businesses grow, create 
jobs and provide the essential goods and services our communities depend on." 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 record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's consulting work would be carried out on a 
scale that would have a substantial prospective impact on the growth of the small business sector or 
national initiatives aimed at that sector. 
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 or consultant 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. 
The Petitioner attributes the likely success and potentially broad national implications of his proposed 
endeavor, in part, to his educational background and considerable 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, 
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 additional insight into the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
Nevertheless, the Petitioner maintains on appeal that the Director improperly overlooked the submitted 
reference letters in evaluating the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, emphasizing that the best 
way to estimate the prospective impact of his work is by evaluating his past achievements and the 
significant impact of his previous contributions. As noted above, we have reviewed the reference 
letters, but the authors do not state, for example, that the Petitioner's past work had broad implications 
within his field that would be carried over to the proposed endeavor and would substantially benefit 
or advance the field. As contemplated by Dhanasar: "[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. Here, the 
Petitioner claims a "unique capacity" and understanding of business and states he has developed 
innovative tools and strategies in business administration that will influence "thousands of American 
entrepreneurs" and enable him to act as an "agent of transformation." However, the record does not 
document the Petitioner's claimed innovations in his field or support his claim that his proposed 
endeavor to work as a business development specialist would provide him with the platform needed 
to influence thousands of U.S. businesses or to transform his industry. 
5 
The Petitioner also indicates in his professional plan that he intends to provide "practical guidance 
through training, lectures, mentoring and consulting to entrepreneurs and community members 
regarding commercial, marketing and sales topics to help the growth of small and medium businesses 
and the qualification of the U.S. workforce." In Dhanasarwe 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. Here, the Petitioner 
did not sufficiently elaborate on the knowledge-sharing component of his proposed endeavor or 
provide an evidentiary basis to support a claim that any training services he provides to small business 
owners would result in tangible improvements, advancements, or other broader implications for his 
field. While the evidence indicates that the Petitioner has knowledge of and practical experience with 
a variety of business development-related areas, it does not establish that his proposed training or 
mentoring activities would potentially have broader impacts within the business development field or 
on the "qualification of the U.S. workforce" as claimed. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter from a 
business professor 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 industry. While the 
professor indicates that the United States would benefit from the Petitioner's expertise and skills as a 
business development specialist, he does not sufficiently address the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor, its prospective substantial economic impact, or any broader implications of the Petitioner's 
work in the field. 
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 lnt'l, 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. 
6 
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). 
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. 
7