dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 20, 2024 In Re: 33402324 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a general and operations manager, 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 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, stating 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 Director additionally determined that the Petitioner had not established that she is an individual 
of exceptional ability, nor that she is member of the professions holding an advanced degree as 
required for EB-2 classification. 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 of Chawathe, 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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. 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. 
Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement 
for entry into the occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
1 Profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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, 2 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. 
Id. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded, among other findings, that the record did not establish that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor in the United States was of national importance. Based on our de novo review of 
the record, we agree with this conclusion. 3 Specifically, we find that that the Petitioner has submitted 
insufficient evidence regarding the substantive nature of her proposed endeavor such that she can 
establish that it meets the requirements of the first Dhanasar prong. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
On the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Petitioner stated that her occupation 
was as a general and operations manager. With the petition, she submitted a professional plan and 
personal statement. She stated that she intended to continue her career in the United States by applying 
her project management and marketing communication strategies to "lead opportunities that encourage 
and strengthen entrepreneurship and innovation". The Petitioner went on to describe her academic 
and professional background and skills and achievements and how they support her goals. She 
contended that her proposed endeavor was to work as a general and operation manager. The Petitioner 
intended to act as a liaison between GovTech companies, accelerators, and governments to identify 
areas of opportunity and collaboration and develop strategies to facilitate technology transfer. She 
2 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). 
3 As discussed here, we decline to reach and hereby reserve arguments concerning the Director's finding that she has not 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are 
not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter 
ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the applicant did 
not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
2 
asserted that she would work to "create an environment that supports developing and implementing 
cutting-edge technology in the public sector" by building relationships and facilitating communication 
in order to exchange information and best practices. The Petitioner stated that she intended to support 
the growth of start-up companies, enhance the quality of education and research at higher education 
institutions, build partnerships with institutions abroad, and leverage the latest technological 
advancements to drive innovation. She expressed her confidence that her assistance to entrepreneurs, 
businesses, academic institutions, and government agencies would drive the development of new 
products and services to support various sectors of the economy, including healthcare, energy, 
education, and finance. In response to a request for additional evidence, the Petitioner additionally 
claimed that she could train other individuals with her skills and knowledge. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that she has submitted thorough and explicit evidence of her proposed 
endeavor and contends that the Director overlooked her previously-submitted evidence of eligibility 
for the requested petition. In support of her argument that her endeavor has national importance, she 
states that it is consistent with Biden Administration priorities such as the Investing in America 
agenda's focus on tech hubs and the importance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics 
(STEM) fields. She further asserts that her endeavor is directly related to fostering innovation and 
promoting entrepreneurship and that she is well-positioned to advance her endeavor. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. 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. 
Here, the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is unclear. Although the Petitioner provided 
information about her professional interests and background, the Petitioner has not clearly explained 
her endeavor beyond generally continuing her career in the United States. For example, in the initial 
petition, the Petitioner indicated that she would act as a liaison between entrepreneurs, governments, 
and other entities. But she did not elaborate on whether she plans to do this by starting her own 
company, as a consultant to other companies, or as an employee of a company. In addition, while the 
Petitioner referred to providing support to a broad variety of these entities, she has not identified 
specific clients, partners, or employers with whom she would engage in this work. The Petitioner has 
not provided sufficient details about her intended projects, such as an operational plan, a timeline, or 
quantifiable business metrics. As a result of this lack of detail and specificity, which the Petitioner 
does not cure on appeal, we are unable to conclude that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national 
importance. 
The record contains support letters from the Petitioner's professional associates regarding her 
qualifications and professional accomplishments. However, the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and 
abilities 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 
3 
she proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. Importantly, 
evidence of the Petitioner's work history does not tell us what that her endeavor would be and whether 
that specific endeavor would have national importance. 
Furthermore, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the national importance of the goals her endeavor 
purportedly seeks to address is misplaced. Merely working in an important field is insufficient to 
establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor without evidence documenting the 
"potential prospective impact" of a petitioner's work. The Petitioner contends that her proposed 
endeavor falls within a STEM profession, which should be taken into consideration in determining its 
benefits for the United States, and submitted industry reports and articles regarding technology, 
entrepreneurship, and the public sector. With respect to the first prong, as in all cases, the evidence 
must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. 4 Many 
proposed endeavors that aim to advance STEM technologies and research, whether in academic or 
industry settings, not only have substantial merit in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, 
but also have sufficiently broad potential implications to demonstrate national importance. 5 On the 
other hand, while proposed classroom teaching activities in STEM, for example, may have substantial 
merit in relation to U.S. educational interests, such activities, by themselves, generally are not 
indicative of an impact in the field of STEM education more broadly, and therefore generally would 
not establish their national importance. 6 Here, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that her endeavor has broad implications such that it would rise to the level 
of national importance. 
It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that they are qualified for the 
benefit sought. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). In evaluating the evidence, 
eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. We 
acknowledge the Petitioner's references on appeal to previously submitted evidence. However, the 
Petitioner does not clarify how these documents establish their eligibility for the national interest 
waiver as claimed on appeal. Commensurate with the Petitioner's burden of proof is the responsibility 
for explaining the significance of proffered evidence. Repaka v. Beers, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1219 
(S.D. Cal. 2014); see also Adler v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 112 F.3d 1475, 1481 n. 12 (11th Cir. 
1997) (noting in a civil case that, absent plain error, it is not the place of an appellate body to grant 
appellants relief "based on facts they did not relate"). As the Petitioner has not done so here, she has 
not sufficiently established that her proposed endeavor in the United States will have national 
importance under the first Dhanasar prong. 
The Petitioner additionally argues on appeal the Director's decision did not thoroughly assess the 
totality of the evidence, did not sufficiently explain the reasons for the denial, and used boilerplate 
language not specific to the Petitioner. We disagree. The Director's denial makes specific findings 
of fact and conclusions of law regarding the Petitioner's request for a national interest waiver and 
addresses each of its eligibility requirements. The decision also refers to, excerpts, and analyzes 
several pieces of evidence the Petitioner submitted below. 
4 See generally 5 USCIS Policy Manual D.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
5 Id. 
6 Id. 
4 
Finally, on appeal the Petitioner argues that she has established that she is a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree due to her five years of experience after obtaining her bachelor's degree. 
She contends that the Director erroneously evaluated whether she was instead an individual of 
exceptional ability. We acknowledge this argument, along with evidence in the record submitted in 
support of the Petitioner's claim of eligibility for EB-2 classification according to the requirements for 
advance degree professionals at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). However, since the identified basis for denial 
is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve this issue. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015). Moreover, for the same reason, we reserve the appeal arguments concerning the remaining 
eligibility requirements under the Dhanasar framework. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5