dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 18, 2024 In Re: 30625363 
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, 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, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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. 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). 
Once 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 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 a 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with the Director's 
conclusion that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit as the endeavor falls within the range of 
areas we indicated could demonstrate an endeavor of substantial merit: business. Id. However, while 
the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not 
show it has national importance. 
The Petitioner intends to work in the United States as a business manager. In her initial professional 
plan, the Petitioner stated that she intended to continue working "in the RD&I [ research, development, 
and innovation] market . . . to continue managing, maintaining good working relationships, and 
identifying any opportunities for new business." The Petitioner contended that her leadership and 
business skills would allow her to "solve problems more efficiently, helping create new methods that 
will ultimately generate business, increase the solutions portfolio and knowledge" and "can be applied 
wherever there is a shortage of skilled labor in [her] field in any region of the United States." 
Ultimately, the Petitioner asserted that her work as a business manager was nationally important 
because her endeavor would create jobs in the United States, generate more tax revenue, create 
intellectual property for businesses, and improve businesses' analysis and processes through agile 
methodologies. In support of the endeavor's national importance, the Petitioner also submitted her 
resume, an expert opinion letter, and industry articles on various business management occupations 
and the U.S. economy trends and outlook. 2 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a new professional 
plan stating that her "proposed endeavor is to work in [ t ]ransport [b]usiness [ a ]dministration and 
[l]ogistics ... in the [t]ransport and [s]upply markets, developing and managing inventory control, 
market study, sales, and production forecast, and marketing intelligence in the marketing area." The 
1 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
2 
new professional plan describes the Petitioner's plans to "work with process optimization and business 
management" to "acheiv[ e] significant financial results through automation, people development, and 
time management." The Petitioner also submitted an updated copy of her resume along with a new 
expert opinion letter. 
The Director concluded that the record did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
endeavor because the prospective impact of her endeavor would not sufficiently extend beyond her 
future employer(s) and their clients to lead to broader implications to the industry or field. Moreover, 
the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that her endeavor has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects. The Director noted, 
for example, that the Petitioner had not provided sufficient information or evidence regarding 
projected economic impact or job creations attributable to her future work. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally asserts that the Director erred in their conclusion that the endeavor 
does not rise to the level of national importance. In doing so, the Petitioner relies on the same 
arguments she previously put forth in response to the Director's RFE, asserting that the record 
"vigorously demonstrate[s] that [she] securely meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework." 
Notably, the Petitioner does not discuss the evidence in the record with specificity, nor does she 
explain how it supports her claims or otherwise overcomes the Director's conclusions. Unsupported 
assertions and speculation have no evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish a filing party has 
satisfied their burden of proof. See Matter ofMariscal-Hernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 666,673 (BIA 2022). 
Upon de novo review, we agree that the record does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance. In Dhanasar we said that, in 
determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of 
the proposed endeavor, noting 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. 
Although the Petitioner's statements in the record reflect her intention to provide valuable services to 
her future employer(s) and clients, including "increa[sing] their market share, improv[ing] sales, and 
reach[ing] new customers," she has not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate 
that the business growth resulting for her employer(s) and/or their future customers rises to the level 
of national importance. For example, while the Petitioner asserts that her work with companies of all 
sizes would "enhanc[ e] the business ecosystem by making companies more customer-centric, reducing 
risks, and offering competitive advantages," she does not provide further explanation regarding how 
her endeavor would have broader implications to the field. Generalized conclusory statements that do 
not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US. Att 'y 
Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions 
in immigration benefits adjudications). 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 too, we agree with the Director that the record does not show 
3 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her potential employer(s) 
and customers to impact the business management field more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance. 
The record also does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor "has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area." Id. at 890. While the Petitioner asserts that helping companies develop marketing 
strategies and expand their business will "lead to increased economic activity within local 
communities," the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity directly resulting from 
her proposed endeavor would rise to the level of national importance contemplated under Dhanasar. 
Likewise, the Petitioner's assertion that the increased tax revenue resulting from the improvements of 
her employer(s) and/or customers' financial standing which "can be allocated to enhance societal 
welfare by funding essential program areas such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure" is also 
not persuasive to establish the national interest of her endeavor. Although any basic economic activity 
has the potential to positively impact a local economy and increase tax revenue, the Petitioner has not 
provided projected employment numbers and revenue growth to establish how her endeavor will 
impact the area of intended operations, nor has she provided evidence that her endeavor will impact 
an economically depressed area. The Petitioner's statements could reasonably apply to any business 
manager in the field who has a positive impact on their employer's operations, but Congress did not 
provide a blanket exemption for business professionals with respect to the job offer and labor 
certification requirement. 
Finally, we reviewed the expert opinion letters from Dr. V-L- and Dr. M-I- and conclude that they 
provide little probative value in establishing the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor. 
While Dr. V-L- concludes that the Petitioner's work "could benefit large-scale companies as well as 
medium sized companies in the United States," he does not elaborate on how these benefits would 
extend beyond the Petitioner's immediate employer(s) nor provide justification for his conclusion that 
the proposed endeavor will have broad implications to the field. Moreover, both expert opinion letters 
rely primarily on the importance of the industry to establish the national importance of the endeavor. 
For example, Dr. M-I- opines that, "[ t ]he transportation and logistics sector is critically important to 
the economy and welfare of Americans," yet, offers no explanation as to how the Petitioner's specific 
endeavor will offer "national or even global implications," to these industries. Id. at 889. USCIS may, 
in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional organizations, or 
other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter ofCaron Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding a noncitizen's eligibility. The submission ofletters from experts supporting the petition is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 
2011) ( discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, 
reliability, and the overall probative value). Here, much of the content of the expert opinion letters 
lack relevance with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the identified reason for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the Petitioner's remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar 
framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5