dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 22, 2024 In Re: 30300088 
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 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 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 
In her initial description of the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner stated that she seeks to work as a 
general operations manager in the United States where she will "contribute to the overall improvement 
of American corporations, essentially by providing such entities with knowledge on how to structure 
and execute strategic factors, as it relates to balance sheet and cashflow optimizations." She further 
stated that she intends to create and develop a chain of healthy fast-food restaurants that will help the 
United States fight obesity. But in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor shifted to plans to continue her career in the United States as a financial 
analyst in order to enhance the financial health of U.S. companies. The Petitioner explained that her 
work would now include improving a company's business and investment uncertainties by providing 
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 
knowledge on how to structure and execute strategic operations in the most cost-efficient way. On 
appeal, the Petitioner states that her proposed endeavor involves, "entrepreneurial endeavors to 
provide services to a broad range of business subjects within the industry." She mentions that her 
proposed endeavor will be to offer her expertise as a general and operations manager. The Petitioner 
also maintains that her mission is to "connect customers with sustainable, healthy food options in the 
fast-casual dining sector. Her company aims to lead in this segment while empowering employees 
and supporting local communities." 
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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof and instead 
imposed a stricter standard. The Petitioner further contends that the Director erroneously applied the 
law and makes general assertions that the Director did not give "due regard" to the evidence submitted. 
The Petitioner also highlights the evidence submitted in support of the petition and in response to the 
RFE to underscore the sufficiency of the submitted evidence, and maintains that she submitted 
evidence to demonstrate the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 
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. 
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. Here, 
the Petitioner's description of her proposed endeavor consists alternatively of being a general 
operations manager, working as a financial analyst, and creating and developing a chain of healthy 
fast-food restaurants. However, it is not possible to determine the substantial merit and national 
importance of an endeavor when a Petitioner cannot consistently articulate the nature of the endeavor. 
Over the course of this petition's pendency the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has transitioned from 
general operations manager to financial analyst and then back to general operations manager. The 
Petitioner has also stated at some points over the petition's pendency, but not others, that she wants to 
be an entrepreneur and open 12 franchised restaurants that offer healthy fast foods. She does not 
address the meandering and evolving nature of her description. But without a stable and consistent 
description of her proposed endeavor, we cannot analyze it under the Dhanasar framework because 
we lack the baseline understanding of her proposal's actual nature that is necessary to undertake such 
an analysis. 
3 
For example, because we have differing iterations of the proposed endeavor, we cannot conduct an 
analysis into whether it holds substantial merit and national importance, let alone conclude such an 
analysis in the Petitioner's favor. Nor can the Petitioner be appropriately evaluated for how well she 
is situated to advance the proposed endeavor when its substance is not evident. And the absence of a 
well-defined proposed endeavor renders balancing the benefit to the United States to waiving the job 
offer requirement and consequently a labor certification impossible. The Dhanasar framework cannot 
be applied to dueling proposed endeavors. A petitioner must identify the specific endeavor they 
propose to undertake. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
We therefore conclude that the Petitioner did not submit persuasive evidence to support a finding of 
substantial merit and national importance, and thus did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. The Petitioner bears the burden to both affirmatively establish eligibility under the 
Dhanasar framework, of which substantial merit is one piece, and establish her eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding her eligibility under the second and third 
prongs. 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 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that she has not established that she eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4