dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 24, 2023 In Re: 28458005 
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, concluding the record did not establish: 
(1) the national importance of the proposed endeavor; (2) the Petitioner is well positioned to carry out 
his endeavor; or (3) that it would be in the United States' interest to waive the requirement of a labor 
certification. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 te1m "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&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 discretion1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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). 
• 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. 
11. ANALYSIS 
A. Appeal Statement 
The Petitioner has not specifically identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in 
the Director's decision, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) and the Form 1-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion instructions. Instead, the Petitioner broadly disagrees with the Director's 
determination and offers his opinion on how the Director should have viewed the evidence. Although 
the Petitioner contends the Director erred in determining he did not establish eligibility under any of 
the three Dhanasar prongs, he does not specifically identify why or how the Director erred. For this 
reason alone, the appeal may be dismissed. 
B. The Proposed Endeavor 
The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 
classification as an advanced degree professional. The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has 
established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. While we do not 
discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
In addition to not meeting the requirements for a basis of the appeal statement, the Petitioner has not 
identified a specific proposed endeavor. On the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, 
the Petitioner stated that he plans to work as a general and operations manager, which involves 
planning, directing, or coordinating the operations of public or private sector organizations. Other 
documentation submitted in the initial filing contains numerous and diverse proposed endeavor 
activities. For example, the Petitioner plans to: 
[E]xpand [his company,] I I Consultancy and Prospecting Consulting and 
Business Structuring between Latin America and the United States of America, 
focusing on the automation and security area with the intention of serving, a priori, the 
following market segments: "financial institutions (banks), ports and airports, and 
property management (holiday homes). 
He explains that 'l Iis a commercial representation & business consulting company[,] and its 
main objective is to reduce the time and operational costs in the entry processes of South American 
products in the North American market and vice versa." His company "works in the sales plan, in 
market prospecting, in the management & advertising of operations from acquisition to final receipt 
of products from customers. In addition to sewing local partnerships with automation & security 
integrators for the installation of purchased equipment and services." 
To summarize, the Petitioner proposed to advise U.S. companies on the operations of public or private 
sector organizations; expand his own company; provide security and automation services for various 
market segments; and facilitate other companies' entry into either the U.S. market or the Latin 
2 
American market, which appears to involve the import and export of products and services, 
establishing new businesses in those areas, customs, internationalization, as well as legal and other 
bureaucratic matters. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), requesting clarification of the proposed endeavor, 
explaining that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor "is extremely broad in scope and vague in detail 
and overall does not sufficiently establish exactly what you intend to do in the United States.... " In 
response, the Petitioner appeared to maintain some elements of general and operations management 
but shifted his focus to entrepreneurship. Although, the Petitioner provided more documentation, he 
did not clarify how he would pursue such a broad set of tasks nor what automation and security 
involves. Moreover, the Petitioner added that he intends to work as a "Construction Manager," to 
address the country's "growing demand for the revitalization of houses and their respective degraded 
areas." 
In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to unde1iake." Id. Here, the Petitioner has not done so. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
involves a variety of divergent and unspecified services, in addition to running his own business. He 
has not explained how he will divide his time between the various facets of his proposed endeavor. 
Without this detail, the Petitioner obfuscates the endeavor's prospective impact and prevents us from 
determining whether it is of national importance. Similarly, we cannot determine how to classify the 
Petitioner's occupation, as the endeavor appears to shift between general and operations management 
and entrepreneurship. 
In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the 
specific proposed endeavor to determine whether (1) it has both substantial merit and national 
importance and (2) the foreign national is well positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar analysis. 
Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient specific information regarding his proposed 
endeavor activities, we cannot conclude that he meets either the first or second prong, or that he has 
established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not identified any specific error in the Director's decision. In addition, the 
documentation in the record does not establish a specific proposed endeavor such that we can 
determine whether it is of national importance and whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance 
it. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further 
analysis of his eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful 
purpose. 
Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve 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 of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on 
appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4