dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 21, 2023 In Re: 28054858 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in 
the alternative, as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business. 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. The Director did not comment on 
whether the Petitioner qualifies for classification as either a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or, in the alternative, as an individual of exceptional ability. However, the Director 
concluded 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 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 I&N Dec. 53 7, 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 a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 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, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance; (2) that 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director did not address whether the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference 
classification as either an individual of exceptional ability or as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. See section 203(b )(2) of the Act. However, because we nevertheless find that 
the record does not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor 
certification, would be in the national interest, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner 
satisfies second-preference eligibility criteria. See id.; see also 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"); 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). 
Initially, the Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan "to continue my activities as a [b]usiness 
[ m ]anager." The Petitioner elaborated that she would "promote business and marketing management, 
ultimately contributing to American companies in various industries." She asserted that she would 
"supervise and lead company operations and employees, performing a range of tasks to ensure 
company productivity and efficiency, including implementing business strategies, evaluating 
company performances, and supervising employees." She asserted that she would "help small and 
medium-sized enterprises in the U.S. improve operations and achieve better productivity and 
profitability levels, therefore generating revenues within the country and creating employment 
opportunities." We note, however, that the Petitioner did not initially assert that she would found her 
own company. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner asserted that the proposed 
endeavor is a plan "to direct and oversee the operations of~-------~ a management 
consulting agency that will operate from I I Florida." The Petitioner asserted that her startup 
company "was incorporated onl I2021, in Florida," which we note was after the petition filing 
date. The Petitioner elaborated that her company "will provide expert financial and management 
advisory services including ... planning, feasibility study, human resource management, asset 
management, and cost control," which will "help[] each client meet their targets with minimum time 
and costs [and] result in an increase ofjob opportunities, wages, and revenues, and help boost the U.S. 
economy." The Petitioner also submitted a business plan dated May 2022 in response to the RFE. 
The business plan indicates that the Petitioner's company would employ nine workers in the first year 
of operation, increasing to a total of 30 employees in the fifth year of operation. Although the business 
2 
plan estimates total payroll expenses of $861,824 in the fifth year of operation, we note that $861,824 
divided among 30 employees is an average annual wage of $28,727 per worker. 
The Director concluded that the record "does not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has national 
importance." The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's business plan asserted that her startup 
company would employ 30 workers within the first five years of operation; however, the Director 
noted that the Petitioner did not establish how doing so "would have substantial positive effects in a 
community" or otherwise provide substantial positive economic effects "which extend beyond the 
community to impact the [b ]usiness industry more broadly," as required by the first Dhanasar prong. 
The Director also concluded that the record did not establish that the proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit, also required by the first Dhanasar prong, and that the record did not satisfy the second and 
third Dhanasar prongs. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats, verbatim, passages from her RFE response. The Petitioner 
summarizes her RFE response as having established that she "is highly experienced, and her proposed 
endeavor will have broad implications by increasing cash flow, increasing sales, increasing marketing 
shares, reducing companies' costs, increasing revenues, and achieving greater control of expenses and 
receipts, as well as greater organization of projects." The Petitioner references her prior work 
experience, and she also repeats, verbatim, passages from an opinion letter from I I 
an associate professor at the University! Isubmitted in response to the Director's 
RFE, regarding the Petitioner's prior work experience. The Petitioner also summarizes letters of 
recommendation already in the record, which praise the Petitioner's prior work experience, and she 
references awards a prior employer gave her in 2013 and 2015. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 
"specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first 
prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that have broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
First, the Petitioner's focus on appeal on her prior work experience-and internal company awards 
given to her during her prior work experience-with regard to the first Dhanasar prong is misplaced. 
Although an individual's education and prior work experience are material to the second Dhanasar 
prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-they are immaterial 
to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a particular, prospective, proposed endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-91. We further note that repeating on appeal 
verbatim assertions already in the record, submitted in response to a prior RFE, does not address how 
a subsequent decision may contain an error. 
Next, we acknowledge that the Petitioner's description of the proposed endeavor appears to benefit 
her own startup business management consulting company and the clients to whom her company 
provides services. As noted above, the Petitioner asserts that her endeavor will result in "increasing 
cash flow, increasing sales, increasing marketing shares, reducing companies' costs, increasing 
3 
revenues, and achieving greater control of expenses and receipts, as well as greater organization of 
projects" for her clients. However, the record does not elaborate on the nature or numerosity of clients; 
the extent to which their cash flows, sales, marketing shares, and revenues may increase; the nature of 
the clients' projects and how the extent to which they will be greater organized, and other details about 
the proposed endeavor that may indicate it will have "substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. Similarly, as noted above, although 
the Petitioner's business plan estimates total payroll expenses of $861,824 in the fifth year of 
operation, the amount of$861,824 divided among 30 employees is an average annual wage of$28,727 
per worker. The record does not establish how paying an average annual wage of $28,727 per worker 
to 30 workers inl IFlorida, is indicative of "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... 
other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. 
Relatedly, neither the business plan nor other evidence in the record elaborates on how the Petitioner's 
startup business management consulting company operating inLJ Florida, may have "national or 
even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." See id. at 889. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. 
We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record establishes that the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, also required by the first Dhanasar prong, and whether the record satisfies the second 
or third Dhanasar prong. See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 526 n.7. As noted above, we also reserve our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the 
Petitioner is eligible for second-preference classification. See id. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4