dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 13, 2023 In Re: 26244354 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a general and operations manager, 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, concluding that although the Petitioner 
established her eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree, she did not demonstrate that 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 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 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, under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. An 
"advanced degree" is defined, in part, as any United States academic or professional degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
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 l&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: 
• 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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 3 Therefore, the primary issue before us on 
appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a discretionary waiver of the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
A Proposed Endeavor 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner provided a "Professional Plan & Statement" in which she indicated 
that she intends to advance her career as a general and operations manager in the fields of business and 
financial systems, "helping American companies make strategic decisions, and thus reducing their 
organizational risks." Specifically, she stated that she will continue her work as a regional director for 
I lmanaging! !franchisees. The Petitioner's Professional 
Plan & Statement provides: 
Should the present 
petition be approved, I will continue to apply m]i management and 
financial skills for the development and growth of the I brand, both in the 
United States and in other market economies .... 
Additionally, I will also offer external management services to small and medium-sized 
companies in the U.S. which require the services and management of an operations 
executive, but are unable to employ someone in that role on a full-time basis due to their 
internal structure or the current financial condition of their business. 
To top it all off: I will launch my own company in the United States - which will serve as 
a series of healthy fast-food restaurants. 
The Petitioner's initial submission also included an "Impact Analysis" for the company she intends to 
create in the quick service restaurant sector, described as "a chain of healthy fast-food restaurants that 
help the U.S. fight obesity." The Impact Analysis indicates she intends to open 12 locations per year to 
reach 60 locations by the end of the fifth year. It includes industry and market analyses, business 
1 See also Pou,:~ina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 The Petitioner provided an official academic record showing that she has a master's degree completed in the United 
States and therefore met the initial evidence requirement for this EB-2 classification under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). 
2 
strategies, financial forecasts and projections, and a description of the company's proposed service 
offerings and personnel. With respect to future staffing, the Impact Analysis projects that the 
Petitioner's restaurant business would hire 862 employees in the first five years of operations, pay 
over $5,485,188 in payroll taxes, and achieve total revenues of $12,020,400 in its first year and 
$76,680,000 by its fifth year. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted an updated Professional Plan 
& Statement, which states her intention "to apply my management and financial skills for the 
development and growth of thd lbrand" and to act as an operations management consultant 
for "large companies in the United States that are engaged in business in foreign markets, including Latin 
America." 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on the specific endeavor the individual proposes 
to undertake and requires the Petitioner to establish both the substantial merit and national importance 
of the endeavor. 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 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director concluded that the Petitioner established that her proposed endeavor 
has substantial merit but determined she did not meet her burden to establish the national importance 
of the endeavor. 
Specifically, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not shown how her proposed endeavor 
would have broader implications within her field that would reach beyond clients utilizing her services, 
or that it would broadly enhance societal welfare. In this regard, the Director observed that claims 
that the proposed endeavor would contribute to "helping American companies make strategic 
decisions, and thus reducing their organizational risks" did not appear to extend "beyond an 
organization and its clients to have national benefits." 
The Director further observed that the record did not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers, would impact an economically depressed area, or would 
have benefits to the regional or national economy that would reach the level of "substantial economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director did not give due regard to her initial and updated 
Professional Plan & Statement; recommendation letters; industry reports and articles demonstrating 
the national importance of her proposed endeavor; evidence of her professional experience and 
accomplishments; and the staffing and income projections in her company's Impact Analysis. For the 
reasons provided below, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework. 4 
4 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
Regarding the Petitioner's fast-food restaurant business, the Impact Analysis asserts that her company 
will strive "to become a leader in the fast-casual healthy dining segment of the fast-food industry." It 
emphasizes the high level of obesity in the United States, and the role fast-food consumption plays as 
a contributor to obesity-related health problems. In support of her claim that the proposed endeavor 
has national importance consistent with the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner 
provided links to published articles and reports, including from the American Medical Association 
and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, addressing those obesity-related health concerns. 
We do not question the significance of these issues and their direct bearing on public health in the 
United States. 
When determining national importance, however, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
In Dhanasar, we farther 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. 
Based on the Impact Analysis contained in the initial submission, the Petitioner has not shown how 
the healthy fast-food services she intends to provide to her restaurant patrons would have broader 
implications in the quick service restaurant industry. She broadly states that her chain of healthy fast­
food restaurants will "help the U.S. fight obesity," but the record does not provide adequate support 
for a determination that her specific proposed endeavor will have such a wide-reaching impact. 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. Id. at 893. Nor has she 
demonstrated that her work would broadly enhance societal welfare at a level commensurate with 
national importance. While the Petitioner proposes to perform work in an area of national importance, 
this is not necessarily sufficient to establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
We also stated in Dhanasar 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 will be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. The job creation and 
revenue projections included in the Petitioner's Impact Analysis are not supported by details showing 
their basis or an explanation of how those projections will be realized. 
Even if the Petitioner had established a sufficient basis for these projections, they would not establish 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor. While the projected income statement indicates 
that the Petitioner's healthy fast-food business has growth potential, it does not demonstrate that the 
benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her undertaking would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, the 
Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence identifying the area where her company will operate; 
that it is economically depressed; that her company would employ a significant population of workers 
in that area; or that her endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit 
through employment levels or business activity. 
Next, we have considered evidence related to the Petitioner's plropored activities in the business and 
financial services field as a general and operations manager for and a consultant. The Petitioner 
4 
maintains on appeal that her work as a general and operations manager "will enhance the revenue of 
U.S. companies, thus elevating their productivity patterns and market growth" and "will improve the 
United States' business sphere, and further position the nation as a business hub within the global 
economy." However, these statements are not supported by financial projections. Although the 
proposed endeavor may benefit the client companies that engage the Petitioner's services, the record 
does not sufficiently show that such benefits, either individually or cumulatively, would rise to the 
level of national importance. 
We have also considered the Petitioner's claims that there are "steep shortages in the U.S. of 
professionals with her profile in the field." But she has not suggested that her proposed endeavor 
would lessen the shortage of general and operations managers on a scale rising to the level of national 
importance. 
Further, the Petitioner provided articles and reports discussing the role of business managers and 
development professionals in the domestic and global economy and the value of immigrants and 
immigrant entrepreneurs as drivers of U.S. new business growth. The record also contains information 
about U.S.-Brazil economic and trade relations, and the economic benefits of international trade and 
foreign direct investment in the United States. Here, the Director concluded that the submitted articles 
and government reports establish the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit. In determining 
national importance, however, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry in which the 
individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes 
to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential 
prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor. 
Moreover, in her personal statements and appellate brief, the Petitioner has placed considerable 
emphasis on her academic training in business administration and her professional experience in the 
field. The record also contains recommendation letters from her current and former employers in the 
United States and Brazil. While important, the Petitioner's expertise acquired through her academic 
and professional career primarily relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. The issue here is whether 
the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's 
first prong. A determination regarding the claimed national importance of a specific proposed 
endeavor cannot be inferred based on the Petitioner's past accomplishments, just as it cannot be 
inferred based on general claims about the importance of a given field or industry. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner provided an expert opinion letter from an associate 
professor at.__ ____ ____.University. Much of the letter discusses the Petitioner's work experience 
in general and operations management. The professor concludes that that the Petitioner's work "will 
indisputably benefit U.S. employers and the U.S. economy as a whole" as she is "a professional of 
great value in her field, with deep expertise in the areas of strategic business development and 
operational management." However, the author does not offer any analysis of the Petitioner's business 
plan; the specific proposed endeavor and its prospective substantial economic impact; or the broader 
implications of the proposed endeavor in the business and financial services field or quick service 
restaurant sector. In fact, the author appears to be under the impression that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor will be limited to general and operations management and consulting; he does not discuss 
the restaurant business model described by the Petitioner in the Impact Analysis. 
5 
We observe that USCIS 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 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS 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 discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Because the Petitioner 
has not established her proposed endeavor has national importance, she is not eligible for a national 
interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. Although the Director also concluded that 
the Petitioner had not established her eligibility under the third prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
detailed discussion of the remaining prongs cannot change the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, we 
reserve those issues and will dismiss the appeal as a matter of discretion. 5 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she 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, with each 
considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessmy to the results they reach); 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). 
6