dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 8, 2024 In Re: 29140916 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, who works in business management, seeks 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. § 1153(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. 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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the national interest waiver. 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 nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates EB-2 eligibility, 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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also 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 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding the 
equivalent of an advanced degree as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The issue before us is whether 
the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner earned a bachelor's degree in business management in Brazil in 2009. The Petitioner 
worked at a large Brazilian bank from 2006 to 2019, first in budget management and financial 
planning; then in human resources and benefit management; and finally, from 2014 to 2019, in project 
management as a health and wellbeing analyst. In July 2019, the Petitioner arrived in the United States 
as an F-1 nonimmigrant student to study English as a second language. In February 2020, the 
Petitioner began working as a regional manager for a commercial cleaning service. She was still in 
the United States when she filed the petition in October 2020. 
The Petitioner submitted a business plan for "a Virtual Social Startup Incubator," described as "an all­
purpose project that intends to offer consultancy to small entrepreneurs," "especially those from more 
vulnerable social groups." The business plan indicates that "[these] entrepreneurs will have access to 
specialized consultancy, courses, training, training [sic], and the advantages of operating in a network, 
with the exchange of experiences and information." 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had established the substantial merit of the proposed 
endeavor, but had not met the other requirements described in Dhanasar. We agree with the Director's 
conclusions, as explained below. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We look for broader implications. An 
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 889-890. 
The business plan indicates that the Petitioner's incubator would employ 50 part-time "consulting and 
mentoring professionals" and 12 full-time employees in other positions, and that the "virtual incubator 
will plan and execute ways of approaching the most socially vulnerable communities, and those most 
in need of this type of stimulus." The business plan, however, does not provide further details about 
the expected wider impact of the incubator's planned activity. 
2 
~---~I
The Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter from an associate professor atl I
who stated that the Petitioner "would work ... in an area of substantial merit and national 
importance." Under Dhanasar, however, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of her 
specific proposed endeavor, which is narrower than the overall area, field, or industry in which the 
Petitioner seeks employment. The letter did not mention the virtual incubator at the heart of the 
proposed endeavor. Instead, it indicated that the Petitioner intends to work "as a General and 
Operations Manager/Entrepreneur in the business administration sector," and that she is qualified to 
help U.S. companies seeking to invest in Latin America. 
The 
Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), stating that the Petitioner must establish the national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor, rather than the overall importance of a particular 
subject, occupation, or field. 
In response, the Petitioner stated that she "will establish her company inl IMassachusetts, 
an SBA HUBZone area that will help to fuel small business growth in historically underutilized 
business zones." The Petitioner cited no independent evidence to establish the relevance of HUB Zone 
designation, or to suppmi the claim that the Small Business Administration had in fact designated 
I I as a HUBZone. Furthermore, the Petitioner's own business plan states that because the 
company would be a virtual incubator that would operate primarily online, the company's physical 
location is not particularly relevant to its overall impact. 
The Petitioner also cited further background information regarding entrepreneurship, small businesses, 
and business development. Because of the general nature of these materials, they do not specifically 
address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not show that the benefit from her proposed endeavor 
would extend beyond the incubated companies to "impact the business industry or field more broadly." 
The Director noted the Petitioner's projected creation of 64 jobs, but found that the Petitioner had not 
supported this projection with independent, objective evidence. The Director stated: 
The evidence in the record does not show how this endeavor would offer substantial 
economic benefits to the region where it operates or to the nation, as a whole; nor does 
it demonstrate how the endeavor would significantly impact employment levels 
regionally or nationally. Furthermore, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
specific work she proposes to undertake will offer original innovations that will 
contribute to the business field more broadly. When determining national importance, 
the relevant question is not the importance of the field that the petitioner will work in 
but the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake. 
Overall, the petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her work 
stands to impact the regional or national populations at a level consistent with having 
national importance. Nor has the petitioner shown that her work would have broader 
implications for the field or industry, beyond the clients she would serve. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that her business plan "allows concrete projections of the benefits she 
may offer to the U.S." The Petitioner does not identify any of these "concrete projections" on appeal. 
3 
The business plan in the record estimates the number of businesses the incubator may serve in its first 
five years of operation, but does not describe the broader impact of the proposed endeavor beyond 
general assertions about the value of fostering small businesses, especially among disadvantaged 
communities. The business plan projects nearly $5.9 million in revenues during the first five years, 
but this figure concerns benefit to the incubator itself. The Petitioner does not explain or establish the 
broader significance ofthis figure to show its national importance, beyond the incubator's self-interest. 
The activities of business incubator could have national imp01iance, if there is evidence to show that 
its impact extends significantly beyond benefit to the incubator itself and its customers. But the burden 
is on the Petitioner to establish that impact, and the Petitioner cannot meet that burden with general 
information about entrepreneurship and unsupported assertions about the goals of the proposed 
endeavor. The te1m "endeavor" is more specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer 
details not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person 
proposes to undertake specifically within that occupation. See, generalZv, 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.5(D)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
For the above reasons, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not established 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second Dhanasar prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To 
determine whether an individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider 
factors including, but not limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related 
or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The Petitioner stated that she is "well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor based on her skills, 
knowledge, and record of success." As noted above, the Petitioner has submitted a business plan for 
the virtual incubator, and the Petitioner holds a degree and certificates relating to business 
management. But the record is deficient in other areas. The Petitioner does not claim any experience 
as an entrepreneur, or running a business incubator. Rather, she "spent the last 14 years working in 
different roles" at a bank, mostly in human resources. An official of that bank indicated that the 
Petitioner's responsibilities included "[f]inancial and budget analysis," "HR/strategic planning, health 
and wellbeing program development," and "[p]roject, product and resource management." Other 
certificates and letters relate to occupational health and safety. The Petitioner did not explain how this 
past experience gives her the necessary expertise to establish and manage a virtual incubator. 
In the RFE, the Director noted that the Petitioner's documented experience does not appear to relate 
directly to key aspects ofthe proposed endeavor. The Director identified several types of documentary 
evidence that could establish the Petitioner's "education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in 
related or similar efforts." In response, the Petitioner submitted a certificate showing that she had 
completed an online program called "Liderarn;a na Inova9ao" through thel II lin summer 2020. The Petitioner submitted no further information about this online course 
to establish its relevance to the proposed endeavor. 
4 
The Petitioner also submitted two letters dated July 2022, relating to employment that the Petitioner 
pursued from 2020 to 2022. Most of this employment took place after the Petitioner filed the petition 
in October 2020. Experience gained after the filing date cannot establish eligibility at the time of 
filing, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Also, the experience described in those letters does not relate to the establishment and management of 
a business incubator. Rather, the letters describe the Petitioner's employment as a regional manager 
of a commercial cleaning company, where she managed the cleaning staff at a fitness center and at a 
hospital, and she tested and implemented "information systems used in customer relationship 
management marketing and management." 
The Petitioner's initial submission did not include any evidence of progress toward achieving the 
proposed endeavor. The business plan describes the proposed endeavor but is not, itself, evidence of 
such progress. The business plan names the Petitioner's proposed company and cites an address for 
its intended website, but the Petitioner did not show that the company or its website existed at the time 
she filed the petition in October 2020. 
The Director requested evidence of progress toward achieving the proposed endeavor. In response, 
the Petitioner submitted articles of organization showing that the Petitioner established a corporation 
in02022, more than two months after the Director issued the RFE in April 2022. This filing does 
not represent progress toward achieving the proposed endeavor at the time of filing. Also, the 
Petitioner did not document any business activity by the new corporation. 
Also in the RFE, the Director noted that the Petitioner's business plan indicates that the company 
would rely on investors who would hold a 40 percent stake in the company. But the Petitioner did not 
identify any investors or show that the company had secured those investments. The Director 
requested documentary evidence of "interest from potential customers, investors, or other relevant 
individuals." The Petitioner's response to the RFE did not include evidence of this kind. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not established that she is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Director noted that the business plan relied on 
several claims and assumptions that the Petitioner had not corroborated with independent evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not dispute "the lack of evidence demonstrating ... interest from 
potential customers, investors, or other relevant entities," but states that she "has provided a 
comprehensive business plan that outlines a clear model and plan for future activities." Such a plan, 
however, is only one of several considerations contemplated in Dhanasar. The Petitioner has not 
shown that, at the time of filing, she had made significant progress toward realizing the proposed 
endeavor. The lack of such evidence is a substantial factor supporting denial of the petition. 
The Petitioner states that she has an "exceptional track record and work experience" and a "diverse 
skill set" with "transferable skills." But the Petitioner has not shown the direct relevance of her 
education and experience to the proposed endeavor. 
5 
The Petitioner also cites her earlier submission of an expert opinion letter, but, as shown above, that 
letter does not describe the proposed endeavor in any detail, instead discussing the Petitioner's 
management experience in more general terms. 
Because the Petitioner has no evident experience establishing or running a business incubator, and the 
record does not show that the Petitioner took any concrete steps toward implementing the business 
plan before filing the petition, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not shown that she is 
well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner has not met her burden of proof to show the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor and that she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
Detailed discussion of the remaining prong of the Dhanasar national interest framework cannot 
change the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, we reserve argument on the third prong. 2 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor, and has not 
shown that she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 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 unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter olL-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