dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Intelligence

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 04, 2023 In Re: 28793408 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business intelligence analyst, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or of exceptional ability, Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the 
job offer requirement that is attached to this employment based second preference (EB-2) 
classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. See 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa'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, 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Whilst neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that USCIS may as a matter of discretion 
grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the labor certification, to a petitioner 
classified in the EB-2 category if they demonstrate that (1) the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance, (2) the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor, and (3) that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the 
requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petition to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, indicate 
that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and 
thus of a labor certification. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner initially proposed to continue working in their field for U.S. companies as a "business 
intelligence analyst" serving as an "expert in data analysis" with companies in "banking and/or 
finances" with an aim to "progressively and positively benefit the United States business industry, and 
economy." by "increase[ing] sales, benefiting American economy as a whole through generation of 
more enterprises, more jobs and, consequently, more taxes." The Petitioner represented that their 
endeavor was to work as a "business intelligence analyst" to use their "knowledge and experience to 
collaborate to growth of middle and large sized companies through use of data structured and 
accurate." The record initially contained the Petitioner's personal statement styled as a "cover letter," 
educational credentials evaluation with degree certificate as well as certificates in SAS programming, 
work experience letters, awards or gifts in recognition of work performance, several letters ofreference 
and recommendation, and various reports and articles purportedly relevant to the Petitioner's claim of 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. 1 The record developed initially at the time of filing 
demonstrated that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was essentially a job search. And the purpose 
of a national interest waiver is not to facilitate a petitioner's U.S. job search. 
1 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) for additional evidence and clarification of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor to determine its substantial merit and national importance. In response 
to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a "Professional Plan," as well as a resume, revised work 
experience letters, a "project portfolio," and documentation from the White House and the United 
States Department of Commerce. 2 
The Director observed that the Petitioner was eligible for EB-2 classification as an individual who is 
a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. But the Director ultimately concluded that 
the Petitioner's substantially meritorious proposed endeavor did not rise to a level of national 
importance as required by the first prong of Dhanasar. The Director also determined that the 
Petitioner was not well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. And the Director concluded 
that on balance of applicable factors, a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor 
certification, would not be beneficial to the national interest. 
Although the evidentiary standard in immigration proceedings is the lowest preponderance of the 
evidence standard, the burden is on the Petitioner alone to provide material, relevant, and probative 
evidence to meet that standard. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. A petitioner's burden of 
proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well as the ultimate burden of 
persuasion. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998); see also the definition ofburden 
of proof from Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (reflecting the burden of proof includes both 
the burden of production and the burden of persuasion). First, a petitioner must satisfy the burden of 
production. As the term suggests, this burden requires a filing party to produce evidence in the form 
of documents, testimony, etc. that adheres the governing statutory, regulatory, and policy provisions 
sufficient to have the issue decided on the merits. 
The evidence and argument the Petitioner introduced into the record does not help them carry their 
burden of production and persuasion. From the outset, the Petitioner's professional plan couches their 
endeavor in terms of targeting their services to "SME [ small and medium] companies trying to achieve 
better market participation." The Petitioner's professional plan advances their intention to "help the 
American economy" by utilizing their "knowledge and skills in [the] field of data processing, data 
analysis and business analyses." 
To satisfy the first prong under the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Petitioner must demonstrate 
that their proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. The first prong 
focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. As stated above, the 
endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, 
2 A petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit they are seeking at the time the petition is filed. See Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 T&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg' 1 Comm 'r 1971 ). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition to make a 
deficient petition conform to USCTS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 T&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc Comm'r 1998). 
Revisions submitted in response to an RFE constituting a materially different endeavor introduce ambiguity which prevents 
analysis into a proposed endeavor's substantial merit or national importance. The Petitioner's revisions here provided 
additional details with more information about how, when, and where the Petitioner will engage in their proposed endeavor. 
So the Petitioner's extensive revisions, whilst concerning, retained the character and nature of the proposed endeavor 
initially described by the Petitioner. 
3 
science, technology, culture, health, or education. the record supports the Director's conclusion that 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was substantially meritorious. 
The Petitioner proposed their endeavor would have "create[ e] jobs," "sprea[ d] knowledge," "increase 
profits and productivity," "protec[t] SMEs," "promot[e] the data analytics culture in American 
companies," "protec[t] American companies from global competitors" and "promot[e] competition in 
the American economy." The Petitioner highlighted the COVID-19 pandemic to support the need for 
their business intelligence data analysis services and farther highlighted the ubiquity of data analysis 
use by large corporations and how those principles can help small and medium corporations to improve 
their business profitability. 
The record contains numerous documents in the form of articles from media and government 
publications corresponding to numerous topics in data analysis. But these relate more to the 
substantiality of the proposed endeavor's merit than its national importance. In determining national 
importance, the focus is not on the importance of the industry in which the petitioner will work or even 
their past success. The focus is on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." 
The Petitioner expressed their proposed endeavor in three phases. Phase one contemplated the 
Petitioner working as "an employee or senior advisor" where they would "track customer behavioral 
changes," anticipate needs, and "improve revenue. " Phase two and three involved the Petitioner 
evolving from an employee to a consultant and expanding the reach of their endeavor small and 
medium companies in sectors other than "banking and/or finances" as they had expressed in their 
initial petition. 
In Dhanasar we said that "we look for broader implications." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec.at 889. 
And it is here that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's deficiencies are revealed. The record does not 
adequately describe how the Petitioner's services would have broader implications to their field of 
business intelligence data analysis. That is not to say that the broader implications of the Petitioner's 
business intelligence data analysis services are evaluated from a geographic perspective. Broader 
implications are not necessarily geographically evaluated; implications within a field which 
demonstrate a national or even international influence of broader scale can rise to a level of national 
importance. But the record as it is presently constituted does not sufficiently describe how 
implementing any of the three phases of the proposed endeavor would implicate any broader initiatives 
other than a benefit to the "small and medium (SME) companies" that may engage the Petitioner's 
services. 
For example, the record does not adequately justify how "track[ing] customer behavioral changes" 
broadly implicates matters in the field of business intelligence data analysis as a whole. Or in other 
words, it is unclear from the record how providing information on customer's behaviors for an 
individual business would implicate any matters in the field beyond assisting the individual business 
to determine the needs of their customers. 
The Petitioner's employment letters, recommendation letters, and letters expressing appreciation did 
not reflect how the proposed endeavor implicates national importance because the letters focused on 
the Petitioner's past work. When evaluating the national importance of a proposed endeavor under 
4 
the first prong of Dhanasar, we are concerned with its potential prospective or future impact. The 
Petitioner's demonstration of prior similar work does not have an influence on the proposed 
endeavor's potential prospective impact based on its national importance. 
And whilst the Petitioner anticipates their services will improve the revenue of the entities that engage 
them, it is not clear from the record how the improvement of one entity's revenue would have a 
substantial prospective positive economic effect commensurate with national importance. For 
example, the record does not adequately demonstrate how the improvement of revenue for one entity 
would create a significant potential for positive economic effects such as an increase in employment 
of U.S. workers particularly in an economically depressed area. 
The relevant inquiry for evaluation of an endeavor's national importance is whether the prospective 
positive impact judged by the endeavor's broader implications or positive economic effects apply 
beyond just narrowly conferring the proposed endeavor's benefit. The Petitioner here has not 
demonstrated how conferring the benefit to the "mid-size to large enterprises" they intend to solicit 
have any implication or benefit rising to a level beyond them and touching matters of national 
importance. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Because 
this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the remaining 
arguments concerning eligibility under the remaining Dhanasar prongs. 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 ofL-A-C-1, 26 I&N Dec. 216, 526n.7 
(BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise eligible). 
So we conclude the Petitioner has not established that they are eligible for or otherwise merit a national 
interest waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5