dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 17, 2024 In Re: 31002853 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an area manager/operational director, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(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, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this 
discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national 
interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although 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 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. 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. 
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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 
thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner demonstrates 
that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen 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, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, in light of the nature of the 
noncitizen's qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen 
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 noncitizen's 
contributions; and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent 
to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as an area manager for companies conducting 
business across various industries. 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. 
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). 
2 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) requesting, among other things, further evidence of 
how the proposed endeavor would be of national importance. In response, the Petitioner provided 
additional documents including a professional plan, letters of recommendation, and industry reports 
and articles. In denying the petition, the Director concluded that although Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish the 
national importance of his endeavor. The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not establish 
his proposed endeavor has broader implications, has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, and 
that it would broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment. Furthermore, the 
Director found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm whether his proposed 
endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's decision contained errors of law and fact. The 
Petitioner further contends that the Director applied a "higher standard of proof'' and "failed to 
consider the totality of the evidence presented." The Petitioner also claims that the Director did not 
consider the evidence presented including documents submitted in response to the RFE. The Petitioner 
highlights the evidence submitted in support of the petition and in response to the RFE to underscore 
the sufficiency of the submitted evidence. 
As previously noted, the first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor 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. 
The record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as an area manager for companies 
conducting business across various industries, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized 
enterprises. The Petitioner seeks to provide exceptional business practices and services to support and 
advise companies of all sizes in diverse industries, customized to their specific needs. 
The expert opinion letters' authors discuss the Petitioner's education and professional experience and 
emphasize the significance of area managers and business management in general. The authors state 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to work as an area manager aligns with government initiatives 
and maintain that the endeavor is of national importance due to the impact of the hotel industry on the 
U.S. economy. The authors nonetheless do not articulate how the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor has national or global implications beyond the clients and companies he elects to work with. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. While 
the Petitioner claims his proposed endeavor is of national importance, the Petitioner has not offered 
sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 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, the record does not include adequate corroborating 
evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in his 
field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive economic effects for the country 
3 
that rise to the level of national importance. Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and 
the evidence he submits on appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed 
endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale 
indicative of national importance. 
The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself: not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must 
establish that his specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 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 the United States. 
Specifically, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his specific endeavor stands to provide 
substantial economic benefits in the United States. While the Petitioner claims that his experience in 
business management and corporate marketing, along with his education, will benefit several 
businesses by enabling them to hire workers, increase company profits, boost federal tax revenues, 
gain a competitive advantage, and generate substantial positive economic effects, the record does not 
support the Petitioner's general assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility of 
those assertions. 
The Petitioner argues that he has submitted evidence showing that his proposed endeavor has potential 
to create a significant economic impact because he is "currently playing a crucial role in the expansion 
of the hotel industry in the Texas] area." He states the project will lead to the 
addition of more hotels, additional employees, an 80% growth in the sector, and substantial 
contributions to the national economy. Even if the Petitioner's projections are realistic, the Petitioner 
nonetheless needs to show that his specific proposed endeavor will have broader impact on the 
business management and hospitality industry that would extend beyond his employers and customers. 
The Petitioner refers to industry reports and articles to highlight the crucial role that area managers 
and business development professionals play in every business and emphasize the importance of his 
proposed endeavor. The Petitioner also states that his proposed endeavor is of national importance 
because it aligns with multiple federal initiatives aimed at fostering growth in the hospitality sector. 
As previously mentioned, 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." Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently explained how he will positively impact the U.S. economy and create direct and 
indirect jobs to move the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. 
Without evidence projecting U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor, it is insufficient to assert that the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy 
resulting from the proposed endeavor would rise to the level of"substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner explains that his academic background and 13 years of experience in designing and 
implementing business development and investment plans will address industry needs and contribute 
to achieving government goals for economic growth, competitiveness, full employment, innovation, 
and economic recovery. Although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and 
achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong. The 
Petitioner's educational background and professional experience are material to Dhanasar 's second 
prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they are 
4 
immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-91. 
The Petitioner urges us to take into account the broader context and the extensive impact of his 
contributions to the hospitality industry when assessing whether his proposed endeavor has significant 
impact that rises to the level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national 
importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims. The 
Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
For the aforementioned reasons, 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 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 arguments 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 Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that he has not established that 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5