dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 7, 2024 In Re: 31108858 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business manager, 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, 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 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 that 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 a business manager. 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 
her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that although Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, the Petitioner did not establish her endeavor's national importance. The Director 
also determined that the Petitioner did not establish her proposed endeavor has broader implications, 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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 her 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 contends that the Director's decision contains "erroneous conclusions of both 
law and fact." The Petitioner further argues that the Director erred in concluding that she did not 
provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate her proposed endeavor's national importance. She 
maintains that her submitted evidence overwhelmingly proves her endeavor's national importance. 
We reviewed the entirety of the record and have considered the Petitioner's eligibility for the national 
waiver. The Petitioner asserts that she aims to provide "specialized services in administration, 
financial development, and human resources to impact the field of business through innovation in the 
U.S." The Petitioner emphasizes her education and extensive experience as a business manager and 
claims that she will leverage her business manager experience to help small and medium-sized 
businesses in the United States to enhance operations, achieve higher productivity and profitability, 
generate revenue, and create employment opportunities. The Petitioner submits a resume, professional 
plan, and recommendation letters to underscore her education and experience in finance and business 
management. In addition, the record includes a letter of intent from a Massachusetts-based company 
expressing interest in working with the Petitioner because of her business administration experience. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 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, though we 
acknowledge the Petitioner's evidence and assertions, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown 
her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employers to enhance societal welfare 
on a broader scale indicative of national importance. 
While the Petitioner claims that she will boost the country's economic growth by enhancing job 
creation, industry competitiveness, supply chain support, technology adoption, entrepreneurship, and 
corporate social responsibility, the Petitioner 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, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's impact will be nationally 
important. 
The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself, not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must 
establish that her specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. The 
Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential 
3 
to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States. 
While the Petitioner contends that her proposed endeavor will create employment opportunities for U.S. 
workers and positively impact the economy by offering tailored financial services and market insights 
to U.S. companies while maintaining relationships with the Brazilian market, she has not presented 
evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her undertaking 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner argues that her proposed endeavor will help U.S. companies grow and expand and 
insists that this will lead to increased demand for skilled professionals and job creation in various 
sectors. She posits that her proposed endeavor will enhance the welfare of the society by building on 
her endeavor's effort to improve small and medium-sized enterprises' access to finance. While her 
endeavor may directly impact her employers and prospective clients, the evidence does not suggest 
how these benefits would reach the finance industry overall or have an impact so broad as to affect the 
economy or create a significant number of jobs. 
The Petitioner claims that her proposed endeavor "holds significant national importance and is closely 
aligned with" national and government initiatives. 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 helping the 
individual companies and clients that would hire her would result in an impact on a broad scale rising 
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 her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
The Petitioner declares the finance field is currently facing a shortage and that she will leverage her 
experience and skills to make a substantial impact on the industry and help bridge the skills gap. It is 
important to note that the shortage of business managers and business professionals does not render 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such 
shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the 
labor certification process. The Petitioner further notes that her extensive experience and expertise in 
the banking and financial sector make her invaluable to the country. 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 claimed extensive experiences are material to 
Dhanasar 's second prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed 
endeavor-but they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, 
proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-91. 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work 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 
4 
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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5