dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23377218 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 21, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference 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 EB-2 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 record 
demonstrated that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree , he had not established 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 ofChawathe , 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. 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. 
Section 203 (b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Alien s who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Furthermore, while 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). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion, 2 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The next issue to be determined 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 under the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 
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. 
In denying the petition, the Director decided that while the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit 
and that he is well-positioned to advance his endeavor, the Petitioner had not demonstrated the national 
importance of his particular proposed endeavor, or 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. 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 T&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of his endeavor in order to establish his eligibility under the first 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The Petitioner initially stated that he will work "as a chief executive in the telecommunications and 
import/export management industries, making contributions of major significance to individuals and 
corporations here in the United States." The Petitioner also provided a professional plan and statement, 
where he described his proposed endeavor as follows: 
My career plan in the United States is to continue my career working as a Chief 
Executive. Through the elaboration of dynamic business channels, I will be able to 
ensure the success of any company that works with me. I intend to continue using my 
vast expertise and knowledge in many areas to provide business management to U.S. 
companies. Moreover my experience working inside industries of national and global 
importance will allow me to work with U.S. companies looking to capitalize in multiple 
areas, especially including those doing business in Brazil or those planning to do 
business there, with greater ease. 
The Petitioner further stated that his endeavor is intended to help U.S. companies seize new market 
and investment opportunities, and indicated that he would perform the following duties in the role of 
a chief executive: 
• Direct or coordinate an organization's financial or budget activities to fund 
operations, maximize investments, or increase efficiency; 
• Analyze operations to evaluate performance of a company or its staff in meeting 
objectives or to determine areas of potential cost reduction, program improvement, 
or policy change; 
• Direct, plan, or implement policies, objectives, or activities of organizations or 
businesses to ensure continuing operations, to maximize returns on investments, or 
to increase productivity; 
• Facilitate cross-border telecommunications and import/export projects between the 
U.S., Brazil and Latin America; 
• Strategically manage and advise on international business projects for U.S. 
companies to increase revenues and competitiveness; 
• Optimize company effectiveness, efficiency, and compliance with cross-border 
laws and industry regulations; 
• Generate U.S. tax revenue. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), asking for more information and evidence to establish 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor. In response, the Petitioner submitted a "Definitive 
Statement," indicating that he will alternatively focus his endeavor on building and expanding his 
domestic animal services company, C-B-S-, LLC, which he founded in 2019. The Petitioner 
described the proposed endeavor as follows: 
The company will provide a com rehensive suite of domestic animal services with 
insurance, including ________________________ 
3 
The company will o erate from a full ed 
mobile van offering these services around the citie s s of ___________ 
I in 
The Petitioner submitted a business plan for C-B-S-, LLC dated February 2, 2022, which indicates 
that he will be the chief executive officer (CEO) of the company. The business plan indicates that the 
company would generate 74 jobs for U.S. workers across the United States, and would pay anticipated 
salaries in excess of $9.5 million over a five-year period. The plan also indicates that the company 
anticipates opening six franchised locations by the end of its fifth year of operations. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor, as the evidence did not demonstrate the endeavor's potential 
prospective impact or show the wider economic effects of the endeavor. The Director noted that the 
Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to show the potential economic impact of the endeavor 
on the U.S. economy or establish that the proposed endeavor had significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a virtually verbatim copy of its response to the RFE, stating 
that the decision to deny the petition was in error and that he is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
Preliminarily, we note that the Petitioner's initial description of the proposed endeavor did not include 
plans to develop and expand his recently formed domestic animal services company; instead, the 
Petitioner initially indicated that he would work as a chief executive in the telecommunications and 
import/export industries and would provide business management services to U.S. companies. We 
conclude the RFE response presented a new set of facts regarding the proposed endeavor, which is 
material to eligibility for a national interest waiver. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 
248 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978); see also Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. The Petitioner must meet 
eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 4 A petitioner may 
not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed to make an apparently deficient 
petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 
1998); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971), which requires that 
individuals seeking employment-based immigrant classification must possess the necessary 
qualifications as of the filing date of the visa petition. 
It appears the Petitioner sought to address the Director's concerns regarding how his services as a chief 
executive would rise to the level of national importance in response to the RFE, but in so doing, he 
significantly changed his proposed endeavor. Notably, the Petitioner did not adequately explain how 
he would allocate his time between serving as a chief executive in the telecommunications and 
import/export industries and providing business management services to U.S. companies (his initially 
stated endeavor) and his newly presented activities in the RFE response and on appeal indicating he 
would serve as the CEO of his recently established domestic animal services company. Accordingly, 
we conclude that both the focus of his endeavor as well as his field of endeavor have materially 
changed. If significant material changes are made to the initial request for approval, a petitioner must 
file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the facts in the record. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). For these reasons, the petition may not be approved. 
4 The business plan submitted in response to the RFE was drafted in February 2022, over two years after the filing of the 
petition. 
4 
Even if the Petitioner had presented his plans to operate and expand his domestic animal services 
company at the time of filing, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of this endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement , 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. The Petitioner 
claimed that his new endeavor will support the U.S. economy by creating jobs, generating tax revenue, 
and buying from U.S.-based suppliers. The Petitioner also claimed that his services "will contribute to 
the emotional and physical health of his clients by providing safe and caring pet I 
services." Although the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to operate a business that will 
provide valuable animal care services to its clients, he has not offered sufficient information and 
evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of 
national importance. Additionally, the general industry reports and article submitted do not refer to 
the Petitioner, the company he founded, or the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake; therefore, 
they do not establish how the proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance . See id. 
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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 893. Here, we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond his business and future clientele to impact the animal care services industry 
or U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore , the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. For example, the business plan states that C-B-S-, LLC will generate short-term 
revenues of $1,776,000, and estimates that the company will create at least 74 jobs within a five-year 
timeframe. However, the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing 
projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized. 
Further, the business plan provides no information regarding initial investments or capital 
contributions toward the start-up of the organization. The Petitioner has not provided a foundation or 
corroborating details to support the growth projections he provided in his business plan, and has 
therefore not demonstrated that his business will impact the nation at a level commensurate with 
national importance. 
Moreover, although the Petitioner highlighted that his endeavor would positively impact the economy, 
tax revenue, and job creation, he has not offered sufficient evidence to corroborate these claims. 
Specifically, he has not shown that his company 's future staffing levels would provide substantial 
economic benefits in Florida or the United States. Again, while he asserts that C-B-S-, LLC will hire 
74 U.S. employees within five years, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that the area 
where the company operates is economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population 
of workers in that area, or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial 
economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. Without sufficient information or 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, 
the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the 
5 
Petitioner's services would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not duly consider certain pieces of evidence and 
failed to apply the correct standard of proof when reviewing the evidence. In support, he relies primarily 
upon the evidence and arguments previously submitted. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's appellate 
claims, we nevertheless conclude that the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. Since the identified basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline 
to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the 
second and third 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 of L-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 demonstrate his eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6