dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
In Re: 26903002 Date: SEP. 14, 2023 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a general and operation 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 immigrant 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 had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The Director did not make a finding on the Petitioner's qualification for the EB-2 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definition: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the 
specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is 
customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign 
equivalent degree. 
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 I&N Dec. 884 (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 the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's 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. Id. at 890. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate 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. Id. at 890-91. 
II. ANALYSIS 
We will 
first address the threshold requirement that the Petitioner must qualify for classification under 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, as the Director did not make a finding on this issue. 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S. 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). 
2 
The Petitioner submitted his diploma and academic transcripts of a master's degree in business 
administration froml !University in the United States. Considering this evidence in the record, 
we conclude the Petitioner has established that he is eligible for the EB-2 classification as an advanced 
degree professional in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
We now turn to the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest waiver under Dhanasar. The 
Director found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not have substantial merit and national 
importance because he did not identify a specific and consistent endeavor. 2 After reviewing the 
record, we find that the Petitioner demonstrated his proposed endeavor's substantial merit but not 
national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner initially described his proposed endeavor as follows: 
My career plan in the United States is to continue working as General and Operations 
Professional to advise U.S. companies on how to properly plan, direct, and coordinate the 
operations of public or private sector organizations. I intend to continue using my vast 
expertise and knowledge to provide expert managerial services to U.S. companies gained from 
over 14 years of experience. Additionally, my business experience working in the management 
of companies in the financial services, manufacturing, banking, sports, technology and retail 
industries will allow me to work with U.S. companies looking to capitalize in these sectors, 
especially including those doing business or planning on expanding their business 
internationally, with the greatest of ease. In fact, I have already received a job offer from a 
U.S. base company ,I lto work in my field of endeavor as a Chief Operating Officer. 
The endeavor's merit 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. The Petitioner 
included various industry reports and articles on a wide range of topics, such as the future of finance 
industry, proper company management, analysis of managerial profession, and importance of 
international companies and foreign investment in the United States. These documents provide 
general outlook on his profession as an operations manager and background information on the field 
of business and finance. Therefore, we find that the Petitioner's initial endeavor has substantial merit 
and withdraw this portion of the Director's decision. 
However, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor meets the national importance 
element under the first prong ofDhanasar. In responding to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), 
the Petitioner submitted an updated professional plan which states that he would work as a "General 
and Operations Professional to advise U.S. companies on how to properly plan, direct, and coordinate 
the operations of public or private sector organizations" but also introduced his own consulting 
company,! I The Petitioner's business plan states that the company's 
mission is to help "family-owned businesses to prepare for succession and adapt to a more 
contemporary approach in operations." The Director found that the new set of facts regarding the 
proposed endeavor constituted a material change in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to 
USCIS requirements and cited to Matter ofIzwnmi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (a 
2 The Director also found that the Petitioner did not meet the second or third prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
3 
petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform 
to users requirements). 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not dispute, or even address, the change in his proposed endeavor. 
Therefore, we deem this issue to be waived. See Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 
2012) (when a respondent fails to substantially appeal an issue addressed in a decision, that issue is 
waived on appeal); see also United States v. Fernandez Sanchez, 46 F .4th 211, 219 ( 4th Cir. 2022) 
(finding the failure to raise arguments regarding eligibility waives those arguments on appeal). 
Instead, the Petitioner makes general assertions that the Director did not apply the proper standard of 
proof and erred by not giving "due regard" to the evidence submitted. However, the Petitioner does 
not support these assertions with specificity as to the record or to the Director's conclusions. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what he claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met his burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed his evidence to evaluate 
the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of evidence. 
We farther note that 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" and its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner submitted industry reports and articles discussing the 
importance of the business field and management careers; however, they do not provide any specific 
information about the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and are insufficient to establish national 
importance of the endeavor. 
Similarly, the Petitioner's recommendation letters do not address his specific endeavor's "potential 
prospective impact," id., but discuss only his rst accomplishments and contributions to his previous 
employers and client companies. For instance Ia board member ofi I 
indicates that the Petitioner's "unique blend of business knowledge, practical experience and inter-
~al engagement skills has made a si,nificanr contribution to our company's success." I I 
L__J a former chief operating officer of praises the Petitioner for building "a process that 
supplied over 500 stores in 13 states in the Southeast" in the company's logistics distribution and 
warehouse department and for developing "a complex budget that saved the company over 4 million 
dollars in transportation cost." While the recommendation letters indicate the high regard for the 
Petitioner and his work, they do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its specific impact. 
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. On appeal, the Petitioner claims 
that as a general operations manager, he "can advise corporations about potential opportunities for 
business development and sales expansion, as well as effective market strategies and initiatives" and 
his activities "will have multiple positive effects on the U.S. marketplace, thus enhancing business 
4 
operations on behalf of the nation and contributing to a streamline economic landscape." The 
Petitioner farther contends that his endeavor will "help the U.S. stay competitive by bringing 
competitive services, helping develop the country, and producing income for the U.S. economy." 
However, generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have 
little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding 
that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). Here, 
the record does not demonstrate that his endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. The Petitioner must submit 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence to establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner has not provided evidence to support that his endeavor as a general operations manager 
for one or more employers would have substantially positive effects or would otherwise have broader 
implications beyond those employers to impact the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. The record does not contain corroborating information or 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his 
operational managerial activities, that would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
as contemplated by Dhanasar. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 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. 
In addition, the Petitioner does not demonstrate how his proposed endeavor will substantially benefit 
the field in which he will work, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[ a ]n undertaking may have national 
importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, 
such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. 
The Petitioner does not offer any evidence that his skills differ from or improve upon those already 
available and in use in the United States. 
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Petitioner did not establish national importance of the 
proposed endeavor and does not meet the first prong ofDhanasar. Therefore, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's 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 find that 
the Petitioner has not established eligibility for 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