dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 12, 2024 InRe: 33171461 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business manager, 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. § l 153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she 
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 I&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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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: 
1 See 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 is discretionary 
in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for underlying EB-2 classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the 
Petitioner has established that 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 her proposed endeavor under the first prong 
of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The Petitioner initially indicated that her proposed endeavor in the United States "is to run an 
e-commerce company focused on manufacturing accessible kitchen appliances in order to increase the 
ease-of-access of kitchens and other types of housing infrastructure for people living with physical 
disabilities." Specifically, she indicated that her company would focus on developing automatic doors 
and cabinets to facilitate easier movement within kitchen environments for people living with physical 
disabilities. She stated that she is initially "looking to have a manufacturing center in the United States 
and distribute nationwide through networks of assemblers who install to [company] standards" and 
the "next step would be to export the product made in the United States, employing local labor to 
Europe, Asia, and Latin America." The Petitioner stated that she will run her company,! I 
from a base in Minnesota. 
In addition, the Petitioner stated that her proposed endeavor is of national importance as her "plan to 
develop a company that creates accessible kitchen supplies and layouts supports maintaining and 
improving the quality of life for people with disabilities in the United States." She indicated that her 
proposed endeavor aligns with the goals of the Biden Administration and institutions like the Center 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In 
response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that her endeavor "addresses key national priorities by 
fostering inclusivity and accessibility through innovative kitchen designs tailored for people with 
disabilities, while simultaneously driving economic growth and job creation in the United States. She 
indicated that her proposed endeavor has a far-reaching impact on the nation as a whole as it addresses 
the critical issues of inclusivity, accessibility, and sustainability. She reiterated that the endeavor is 
not confined to a single organization or locality as it aims to establish a manufacturing center in the 
United States with a distribution network that spans nationwide. She further indicated that the 
endeavor will create job opportunities and stimulate economic growth on a national scale as it will 
employ local labor and collaboration with architects, designers, and carpenters. Finally, the Petitioner 
emphasized that her proposed endeavor is "not merely about creating a product[,] it is about fostering 
an inclusive society that aligns with governmental priorities, thereby contributing to the national 
interest in a significant manner." 
2 
The Petitioner submitted personal statements, a business plan, a letter of interest for investment, letters 
of recommendation, reports and articles, and education and credential information on the record. 2 The 
Petitioner's business plan included information about the need for the company's services, market 
analyses, business strategies, marketing strategies, an operational plan, a financial plan, an analysis on 
the company's national-level impact, and specifically indicated that the company's ultimate goal is to 
"bring joy to people who need it the most by creating or adapting home spaces for families and 
individuals affected by autism spectrum disorder or other physical and mental impediments that limit 
their mobility, development, or communication." It further indicated that the company "will provide 
kitchen design services to individuals and families looking to improve accessibility and living 
conditions ... [to] include manufacturing kitchen furniture and countertops made of granite or quartz 
to ensure the client receives a personalized project from start to finish." 
With respect to staffing, the business plan identified 12 employees required to operate the proposed 
endeavor -the Petitioner as the chief executive officer, an accounting manager, six carpenters, an 
administrative assistant, a marketing manager, a sales representative, and a project manager. It further 
indicated that it would hire 5 employees in the first year -to include two carpenters- hire an additional 
carpenter and two other employees the second year, hire an additional carpenter and one other 
employee the third year, and hire one additional employee the fourth and fifth years, until reaching 12 
total employees in year five. It also indicated that the company will use the services of independent 
contractors, such as cabinet makers, an accountant, and legal assistance in addition to the 12 in-house 
employees. With respect to revenue, the business plan offered total sales projections of $721,250 in 
year one, $1,183,750 in year two, $1,548,750 in year three, $1,816,250 in year four, and $2,067,500 
in year five. 
The Petitioner provided articles and reports3 discussing the importance of fostering an inclusive 
society, particularly among those living with physical disabilities in the United States, and the specific 
challenges faced by a marginalized community. The Petitioner also submitted published materials by 
the White House and other government agencies to show that her proposed endeavor is nationally 
important because it promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion and aims to serve a community that has 
been historically underserved-individuals with disabilities, as well as the aging U.S. population-by 
providing them with kitchens tailored to meet their needs, which is closely tied to the U.S. 
government's interests. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established the proposed endeavor's substantial merit but 
not its national importance. Regarding substantial merit, the endeavor's merits may be demonstrated 
in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or 
education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
On appeal, the Petitioner specifically references the Director's comments indicating that the evidence 
in the record outlining her job as a business manager is too vague and appears to contain errors, and 
explains that the record includes a 48-page detailed professional business plan containing extensive 
information regarding the nature and scope of her proposed endeavor, a detailed description of the 
2 This is a non-exhaustive list of evidence the Petitioner submitted in the record. While we may not discuss every document 
submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 The Petitioner submitted numerous articles and reports in the record and each one has been considered. 
3 
company's services, a personnel plan with hiring projections, a financial forecast, and the national­
level impact of her proposed endeavor. She generally asserts that the Director did not properly 
evaluate the record and impermissibly focused on whether the Petitioner's endeavor would result in 
broader implications to the accessible interior design field and cabinet manufacturing industry, without 
considering the prospective impact of her endeavor to societal welfare and its implications on a matter 
that a United States government entity has determined is of national importance. The Petitioner 
reiterates information found in her statements and the business plan in the record pertaining to the 
prospective national impact her proposed endeavor holds for the United States from an economic 
benefits standpoint and a social welfare standpoint. 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit 
but does not satisfy the national importance element of Dhanasar' s first prong. If the Petitioner does 
not meet the first prong, the evidence is dispositive in finding the Petitioner ineligible for the national 
interest waiver, and we need not address the second and third prongs. See id. (requiring that petitioners 
establish all three prongs in order to establish eligibility). 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that her proposed work as a business manager of accessible interior 
design and cabinet manufacturing, primarily kitchens, is of national importance to the United States. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See id. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look 
for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]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. In this case, we recognize 
that there may be a lack of accessible kitchens in homes within the United States, as well as other 
accessibility issues affecting individuals with mental or physical disabilities, as reported in the articles 
and reports submitted. However, while the government initiatives acknowledge the need to provide 
greater inclusivity and accessibility for these individuals in the United States, they do not indicate that 
government has an interest in the Petitioner's planned business activities to establish an accessible 
interior design services and cabinet manufacturing company. The Petitioner has not shown how her 
proposed endeavor specifically has national implications within her particular field. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. Although the 
Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide valuable interior design and cabinet 
manufacturing services specifically to address the inclusivity and accessibility needs of her clients 
living with mental and physical disabilities, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to 
demonstrate that the prospective impact of her 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 that the record does not show the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond her company and its future clients to impact the field of accessible interior 
design, the cabinet manufacturing industry, societal welfare, U.S public health, or the U.S. economy 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
4 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for the U.S. Specifically, she has not shown that her company's future staffing levels, business 
activity, and associated tax revenue stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Minnesota or 
the U.S. While the projected revenues outlined in the business plan indicate that her company has 
growth potential, it does not demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting 
from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, although the Petitioner asserts that her endeavor 
stands to generate jobs for U.S. workers, she has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where 
her company operates is economically depressed, that she 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, business activity, or tax revenue. Moreover, while the 
Petitioner contends that her proposed endeavor will extend beyond Minnesota to Nevada and Florida, 
and later expand to Texas, Utah, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey, she has not shown that the 
prospective impact of the accessible interior design and cabinetry manufacturing services performed 
by her company represents a significant share of the industry. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her 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 arguments regarding her 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 she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5