dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY. 29, 2024 In Re: 31125701 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of 
exceptional ability in the arts, sciences, or business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
established his eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree, he 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 pursuant to 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 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. 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 T&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 
TI. ANALYSIS 
According to the Petitioner's resume, he worked as general manager of the drugstore I IIbetween 2007 and 2017, and as an external sales representative and sales supervisor with 
__________ a business specializing pharmaceutical distribution, from 201 7 until 
2020. The Petitioner entered the United States in April 2022 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor for 
pleasure and filed this petition in November 2022. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 3 Therefore, the sole issue before us is whether the record establishes that a waiver of the job 
offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. Although the 
Director found substantial merit in the proposed endeavor, and that the Petitioner is well-positioned to 
advance it, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has 
national importance and that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the 
United States. For the reasons provided below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor and therefore is not eligible for a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. 
A The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicated on the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, that he intends to 
work as a "business manager" in the United States, "overseeing business operations across 
departments and implementing management guidelines," and will "[m ]aintain company budgets, 
communicate ideas between 
upper management and company employees, and conduct performance 
reviews for employees." 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner submitted a "Professional Plan" in which he indicated his endeavor 
is to "offer to any company a professional action plan that will include budget, sales, inventory control, 
labor and payroll cost references, profit, and an overview of employee losses and motivation." In 
addition, the proposed endeavor "will support companies by creating sales strategies, locating 
commercial possibilities through the company's strategic planning, aligning customer needs with 
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 is 
discretionary in nature). 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 The Director indicated that since the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, she 
need not evaluate whether the Petitioner also qualified as an individual of exceptional ability. 
2 
selling services and products, and creating innovative sales solutions to improve the U.S. Business." 
Further, the Petitioner stated he "will apply my honed technical skills and experience in this field to 
organize the structure of organizations and thus generate greater viability and sustainability of the 
business and consequently generate an increase in the profits and growth of the U.S. economy." 
Within his response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a "Personal 
Statement Outlining Professional Plan," in which he indicated that as business manager he will "provide 
my specialized services in the financial, commercial, and sales areas with expertise in people management 
and strategic planning to impact the field of business through innovation in the U.S." In his statement he 
explained that "[d]ue to my extensive professional experience in the pharmaceutical industry, I intend to 
focus my contributions on this niche first, while planning to serve other industries in the future as well." 
He further asserted the impact of his proposed endeavor will be as follows: 
My professional undertakings and performance will undoubtedly impact companies and 
the economy of the United States. By developing and implementing new systems and 
management techniques, the companies and organizations I contribute to will experience 
a reduction in costs, reduction of errors and rework, and an increase in productivity with 
the automation of its processes that will further provide greater efficiency and increase 
profits. ( emphasis in original) 
I will significantly contribute to enhancing profitability and promoting overall business growth 
in the United States. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
As stated, to satisfy the first prong under the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. This 
prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on the specific endeavor 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. As noted, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner established that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit but 
determined he did not meet his burden to establish the national importance of the endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director did not give due regard to his submitted 
"comprehensive set of documents, including a resume, professional plan, and reference letters" as well 
as cited industry articles and government reports "aiming to corroborate the national significance of 
his proposal." For the reasons provided below, we agree with the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We have considered evidence related to the 
Petitioner's proposed activities as a business manager in the pharmaceutical distribution field. 4 The 
Petitioner has not shown how the services he intends to provide would have broader implications in 
the fields of business management or pharmaceutical distribution. 
4 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
While the Petitioner's RFE response provided evidence relating to the importance of small businesses 
and the pharmaceutical industry to the U.S. economy,5 when determining national importance, 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 of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential 
prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor. In Dhanasar, we further 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. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not shown how his proposed endeavor would have 
broader implications within his field that would reach beyond clients utilizing his services, or that it 
would broadly enhance societal welfare. 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. 
Further, the Petitioner argued that his proposed endeavor will have an impact on U.S. pharmaceutical 
supply chains and will aid the nation's small businesses, matters that are the subject of national 
initiatives by the U.S. government. On appeal, he maintains that his proposed "initiative aligns 
seamlessly with U.S. governmental objectives aimed at fortifying the pharmaceutical sector, 
enhancing its global competitiveness, and ensuring its sustained contribution to public health and the 
national economy." 
USCIS will consider evidence demonstrating how a specific proposed endeavor impacts a matter that 
a government entity has described as having national importance or a matter that is the subject of 
national initiatives. Again, in determining national importance, 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 l&N Dec. at 889. 
Therefore, pursuing employment in an area that is adjacent to or aligned with the subject of national 
initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of a specific endeavor. 
Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained the potential prospective impact or broader potential 
implications of his specific endeavor on the referenced pharmaceutical distribution and small business 
initiatives. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that his proposed endeavor is "not only confined to serving the 
immediate needs of specific clients, customers, or employers but rather manifest[s] a broader, 
impactful vision aimed at fostering significant advancements within various sectors across the United 
States," and that the benefits of his proposed endeavor "will disseminate not only to others in the field, 
but to every other field in [the] U.S., ultimately positively impacting the entire nation's economy." 
However, these statements are not supported by financial projections. The record lacks evidence that 
the proposed endeavor's future staffing levels and business activity would provide substantial 
5 For instance, the Petitioner's RFE response letter contains a screenshot from reseach.com showing that in 
2019 the U.S. Pharmacy Market was valued at $446.lB. 
4 
economic benefits in the United States, 6 or that it otherwise has broader national implications within 
the field. Without this evidence, we cannot evaluate the proposed endeavor's impact on job creation 
or its overall economic impact. 
As such, the Petitioner has not supported a claim that his proposed endeavor is likely to, for example, 
introduce innovations that may have broader implications for small businesses in the pharmaceutical 
distribution field. Although the proposed endeavor may benefit the client companies and consumers 
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. 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. The record does not 
provide adequate support for a determination that his specific proposed endeavor will have such a 
wide-reaching impact. 
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 well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. Here, the Petitioner has 
not offered evidence identifying the area where he will operate; that it 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. 
Moreover, in his personal statement, professional plan, and appellate brief, the Petitioner emphasized 
his professional experience in the field. The record also contains recommendation letters from his 
former employers, co-workers, and clients in Brazil. While important, the Petitioner's expertise 
acquired through his 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. 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to establish that he 
meets the first prong of the Dhanasar national interest framework. Because the Petitioner has not 
established his proposed endeavor has national importance, he is not eligible for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments 
regarding his eligibility under the third Dhanasar prong. 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). 
6 The Petitioner has not offered evidence identifying the area where he will operate his proposed endeavor. 
5 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6