dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 19, 2024 In Re: 30631587 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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 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 the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that 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. 
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 novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 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 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 also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 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 found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining 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. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner initially indicated that he intends "to serve as 
CEO/entrepreneur by managing and operating my own company, focused on the development and 
management of a digital learning and instruction platform. It will be a Florida-based business/platform 
that will specialize in providing courses for sales people operating in the pharmaceuticals industry." He 
further explained: 'These courses will be specifically aimed at expanding pharmaceutical sales 
professionals' knowledge in ophthalmology-related pharmaceutical products and the most effective ways 
to sell them. They will be provided in a classroom setting as well as online." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner stated: 
I intend to continue my career as chief executive/entrepreneur in the United States. I will 
do this by creating my own company in the field, called I I Working with 
U.S. trade companies, I will use my practical and theoretical experience in the field to 
coach sales teams and develop commercial chains for American products, equipment, and 
services thus ensuring my company delivers consistent results - making it stand out in the 
market, benefiting the national economy, as well as generating jobs for U.S. workers. 
In a nutshell, my company will offer training and support to sales services - especially for 
U.S.-based international trade companies. I will maximize my clients' profits and reduce 
their operational costs while helping them to reach international markets generating 
revenues to U.S. economy. 
Therefore, my overall proposed endeavor in the United States is to launch and develop 
my U.S. company, via which I will assist American companies to improve, restructure or 
refine their existing sales processes and reach international markets. Through this, I will 
both incentivize the national economy, as well as create jobs for American workers. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted the business plan for his company. This business plan includes 
industry and market analyses, information about the company and its services, financial forecasts and 
projections, marketing strategies, a discussion of the Petitioner's education and work experience, and 
a description of company personnel. Regarding future staffing, the Petitioner's business plan 
anticipates that his company will 12 personnel in year one, 20 in year two, 22 in year three, 26 in in year 
2 
four, and 28 in year five, but he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting 
the need for these additional employees. Furthermore, while his plan offers revenue projections of 
$442,000 in year one, $758,100 in year two, $858,005 in year three, $1,060,905 in year four, and 
$1,193,951 in year five, these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an 
explanation of how they will be achieved. 
The record includes information about federal and state programs for immigrant business owners in 
the United States, workforce issues and sustainability, our country's loss of immigrant entrepreneurs 
to other nations, the reasons the U.S. business community should support immigration reform, the 
increase in the U.S. foreign born population, entrepreneurship trends, and the advantages of starting a 
business in the United States. In addition, the Petitioner provided articles discussing the benefits of 
an entrepreneurial revolution, billion-dollar startups founded by U.S. immigrants, small business and 
entrepreneurship, the financial planning industry, the management consulting industry, immigrants as 
business starters, the entrepreneurship landscape, entrepreneurship as an engine of economic 
development, and CEO leadership in digital transformation. He also submitted information about the 
job outlook for chief and top executives, the barriers facing immigrant entrepreneurs, immigrants as 
job creators, characteristics of immigrant entrepreneurs, immigrants as driver's of U.S. economic 
growth, chief financial officer (CFO) predictions and initiatives, the U.S. labor shortage, the positive 
economic impact of immigration, the "International Entrepreneur Rule," immigrants and workforce 
development, CFO concerns over revenue and earnings growth, and trends facing CFOs (including 
talent retention and remote work). 
We agree with the Petitioner that the submitted documentation establishes his endeavor has substantial 
merit. In determining national importance, however, the relevant question is not the overall 
importance of the industry in which the individual will work or the value of immigrant 
entrepreneurship; 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 his specific proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner offered letters of support from H-F-, R-P-R-, R-T-, R-A-, F-C-, and M-N-T- discussing 
his business capabilities and pharmaceutical sales experience. The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and 
prior work in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts 
the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether 
the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first 
prong. 
The Petitioner also provided an "Expert Opinion Letter" from Dr. V-L-, Associate Professor of 
Marketing at in support of his national interest waiver. Dr. V-L- contends 
that the Petitioner's proposed work is of national importance because his generic occupation of 
CEO/entrepreneur and knowledge in business administration stand to "contribute to the nation's 
economy by optimizing U.S. companies' resources, increasing productivity, reducing costs, and 
generating revenue." Again, the issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which the individual will work; rather we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. The advisory opinion does not demonstrate how 
the Petitioner's day-to-day management of his company's operations and performance of sales training 
and consulting services for clients as contemplated by his proposed endeavor rise to a level of national 
3 
importance. The letter from Dr. V-L- does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor 
does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific 
proposed work offers broader implications in his industry or substantial positive economic effects for 
our nation that are indicative of its national importance. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated his undertaking offers "national or even global implications within a particular field or 
industry." The Director also concluded the Petitioner had not shown that the "benefits to the regional or 
national economy resulting from his proposed endeavor would reach the level of 'substantial positive 
economic effects.'" 
In his appeal brief, the Petitioner argues that he "will be addressing an industry shortage, which cannot 
be addressed by the U.S. workers as demand exceeds supply." We are not persuaded by the argument 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of workers in his 
field. Here, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to impact or 
significantly reduce the claimed national shortage. Moreover, shortages of qualified workers are 
directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts that his "vision of establishing a digital learning platform for 
pharmaceutical sales professionals has the potential to make a considerable impact." While the Petitioner 
claims that this platform "directly contributes to the industry's improvement by fostering a more informed 
and skilled sales force," the record does not demonstrate that it stands to impact his field or industry more 
broadly beyond the clientele enrolled in his company's sales training programs. 2 
The Petitioner further contends that his "company will have a great impact on the U.S. economy 
generating a total of 28 direct jobs in Year 5." He argues that his proposed endeavor stands to affect 
the national economy by "offering economic convenience and agility" to "small and medium-sized 
U.S. companies," "promoting growth and expansion and driving change with innovation," 
"stimulating the domestic job market," and generating "new jobs for American workers." The 
Petitioner, however, has not provided evidence demonstrating that his proposed business activities 
would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an 
endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to 
substantiate such claims. Furthermore, while any basic economic activity has the potential to 
positively affect the economy to some degree, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the potential 
prospective impact of his proposed endeavor stands to offer broader implications in his industry or to 
generate substantial positive economic effects in the region where his company will operate or in other 
parts of the United States. 
The Petitioner also cites to information from public policy organizations, news media, and U.S. federal 
agencies to show the overall value of immigrant entrepreneurship, but he has not demonstrated how 
operating a sales training and support services company as contemplated by his specific proposed 
endeavor rises to a level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader 
2 Likewise, 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. 
4 
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. 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. 
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. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide sales training and support services to his 
company ' s future clients, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that 
the prospecti ve impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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. Here, we 
conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
his company and its clientele to impact his field, the pharmaceutical industry, or the U.S. economy 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown 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. Specifically , he has not demonstrated that his company's future staffing levels and 
business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States. While 
the Petitioner claims that his company has growth potential, he has not presented evidence indicating that 
the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, although the 
Petitioner asserts that his endeavor stands to generate jobs for U.S. workers, he has not offered sufficient 
evidence that his endeavor offers Florida or the United States a substantial economic benefit through 
employment levels or business activity. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate argument s regarding his eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar . 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- , 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, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5