dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 28, 2024 In Re: 31071438 
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 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. § 1 l 53(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, he 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 Christa'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. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner shows : 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 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). 
• 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's decision did not render a determination as to whether the Petitioner qualifies as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional 
ability. Instead, the decision only addressed the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Therefore, the issue for consideration on appeal 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 his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 2 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that while the Petitioner was well-positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that he meets the first and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. On appeal, the Petitioner 
maintains that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that he meets all three prongs under the 
Dhanasar framework and otherwise warrants a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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 Petitioner is a trained electrician and a general and operations manager. In a letter of support, he 
described his proposed endeavor as follows: 
My proposed endeavor is to own and operate a business for installation, repairs, and 
maintenance of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems (HV AC) and Smart 
Home systems, based in Orlando [Florida]. The company, legally organized as an LLC, 
will initially serve the following market segments: meals (restaurants, supermarkets, 
and bars, bakery, and others); hospitality (hotels); and real property management 
(industrial, office and administrative buildings, educational and civilian institutions, 
organizations, and facilities). As the business solidifies, I hope that I will be able to 
expand across the State of Florida and manage to serve other market segments in other 
economically depressed areas needing higher support for the development of the local 
economy. 
The company will make sure that all projects are carried out on the agreed schedule 
and exceeding the clients' expectations. The substantial merit of my proposed 
2 Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility for a national interest waiver on appeal, we need not remand 
the decision for the Director to determine whether he qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. 
2 
endeavor can also be evidenced by the sharp market need for General and Operations 
Managers to meet the present and future demands of the USA. 
The Petitioner also submitted his business plan, copies of his academic credentials and resume, an 
expert opinion letter, and letters of support and recommendation in support of the petition. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), noting that the evidence submitted with the initial 
filing was insufficient to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national 
importance. Specifically, the Director observed that the Petitioner did not provide specific insight as 
to what he intends to do in the United States, and requested a detailed description of the proposed 
endeavor so that the Petitioner's request for a national interest waiver could be evaluated under the 
Dhanasar framework. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a cover letter that reiterates his intention to form an 
HV AC company. The Petitioner emphasizes that his endeavor has substantial merit and national 
importance "insofar as the services offered by my company are essential for the promotion of air 
quality and health for all; in addition to playing an important role as a small business in the national 
economy." The Petitioner further claimed that his proposed endeavor will have positive economic 
impacts, generate direct and indirect jobs, and have social and environmental impacts. 
The Petitioner also resubmitted his business plan, expert opinion letter, and testimonial letters in 
support of his eligibility for a waiver of the job offer. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner provided insufficient evidence to 
establish the proposed endeavor's national importance. The Director determined that the Petitioner 
had not shown that his proposed endeavor had significant potential to employ U.S. workers, would offer 
substantial positive economic effects for the United States, or that the benefits to the national economy 
resulting from the proposed endeavor would reach a level contemplated by the Dhanasar framework. On 
appeal, the Petitioner provides a brief emphasizing his qualifications and asserting that the evidence 
ofrecord establishes the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
A. Substantial Merit 
First, we will address the issue of substantial merit, which may be demonstrated in a range of areas 
such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. See Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director did not make a determination in the denial decision regarding the 
substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The record contains supporting statements from the Petitioner in which he consistently maintained 
that his proposed endeavor is to open an HV AC company that will provide installation, repairs, and 
maintenance of heating, ventilation, air conditioning systems, and Smart Home systems for a variety 
of market segments. The Petitioner also provided a business plan in which he discussed his 
professional qualifications that will enable him to provide such services. We conclude that the record 
supports the Petitioner's claim that his proposed work as general and operations manager of his HVAC 
company has substantial merit. 
3 
B. National Importance 
Notwithstanding our favorable determination on the issue of substantial merit, for the reasons 
discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
In determining national importance, 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 id. 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. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation explaining 
how the proposed endeavor is of national importance. While the Petitioner's statements and evidence 
reflect his intention to provide HV AC installation, repair, and maintenance to a variety of industries, 
he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of 
his 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. See id. at 893. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not 
shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to impact the HV AC 
industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
As noted above, the record contains a business plan which contains statistics and information 
pertaining to HV AC and Smart Home market perspectives in the United States. In determining 
national importance, however, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or 
profession in which an individual will work; instead, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the 
[noncitizen] proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. The Petitioner must demonstrate the national 
importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of owning and operating an HVAC and Smart Home 
company rather than the importance of the HVAC and Smart Home industry. 
Throughout the record, the Petitioner points to his education, skills, knowledge, and record of success 
in his field. The Petitioner also provided several letters of support that discuss his experience in the 
field of pharmacy. The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field, however, relate to the 
second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the 
foreign national." See id at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to 
undertake has national importance under the second consideration of Dhanasar's first prong. To 
evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we 
look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of support that speak to his character and his talents in the field. 3 For 
example, a letter from states that he worked with the Petitioner on various 
3 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
projects and commends his "comprehensive knowledge of raw materials, production processes, quality 
control, costs and of other techniques to maximize efficiency in manufacturing and distribution of 
goods within the context of where he is carrying out his activities.".__ ____________ 
speaks constructively of the Petitioner's work and recommends him for the requested classification, 
noting that he "has many qualities as a professional" such as "keeping up-to-date on new tech and 
applying new knowledge at work." A letter from __________ a civil engineer and 
former coworker, speaks highly of the Petitioner's professional competence and extensive knowledge 
of computers and computer systems. 
Although the writers praise the Petitioner's past achievements and abilities, none of the authors discuss 
the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor of owning and operating an HVAC company in the United 
States. Instead, the authors primarily focus on the Petitioner's character, skills, and past professional 
accomplishments. Neither the letters nor any other evidence within the record provide insight into 
how the Petitioner's endeavor to provide HV AC and Smart Horne installation, repair, and maintenance 
services will positively impact the region or the industry beyond his clients. Again, 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. 
The Petitioner also provided an expert opinion letter from an adjunct assistant professor of business at 
I I who opines that the Petitioner meets the requirements of the Dhanasar framework. 
The professor discusses aspects of the Petitioner's occupation and provides this generalized 
information about his endeavor: 
[The Petitioner] specializes in the technical administration of the use of tools, products, 
and operational processes essential to the functioning of a company. His work is in 
demand and has national importance in this field. Through his exceptional track record 
of experience as an entrepreneur and general and operations manager, he has 
demonstrated that he is fully capable and well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor related to the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems (HV AC) and 
Smart Horne industry. 
He further stated: 
It is important to highlight that this field requires very specific knowledge for him to 
achieve the success he has had because it consists of an area that requires technical 
expertise in business management and HV AC and smart home services. This makes 
[the petitioner] an Entrepreneur who possesses a high-level technical knowledge in the 
administration and training of personnel. 
The analysis in the professor's letter is not specific to the Petitioner's actual endeavor. Instead, he 
states that the Petitioner qualifies for Dhanasar's first prong because "[t]he U.S. would benefit from 
the unique expertise and skills of a General and Operations Manager with expertise in the HV AC and 
smart home installation and retail services.... " Moreover, the professor's discussion primarily 
focuses on the HVAC and Smart Hornes market rather than the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor. As a matter of discretion, we may use expert opinion letters submitted by a petitioner as 
5 
advisory testimony. However, USCTS is responsible for making the final determination regarding 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Where an opinion letter is not in accord with other information or is 
in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter 
of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 T&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). Here, the analysis offered in the 
professor's letter is largely limited to general observations about the Petitioner's qualifications and the 
occupation and industry in which he will work and does not offer an analytical roadmap that lays out 
the basis for the opinion that the Petitioner meets Dhanasar 's first prong. We conclude the opinion 
letter provided lends little probative value to the matter here. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 376. 
The Petitioner's business plan explains the services the business will provide, the market for HVAC 
and Smart Home technologies, and the company's proposed marketing, staffing, and financial 
forecasts. It further indicates it will help economically depressed communities, including regions in 
central Florida. 
However, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support his claims that his 
company's activities stand to provide substantial economic and environmental benefits to Florida or 
the United States. The Petitioner's claims that his HV AC and Smart Home business will benefit the 
Florida and U.S. economy have not been established through independent and objective evidence. The 
Petitioner's statements are not sufficient to demonstrate his endeavor has the potential to provide 
economic or environmental benefits to Florida or the United States. The Petitioner must support his 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See id. Also, without sufficient 
documentary evidence that his proposed job duties as the company's general and operations manager 
would impact the HV AC and Smart Home industry more broadly, rather than benefiting his business 
and his proposed clients, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that 
his proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
The business plan projects that it will initially hire 8 employees, including a maintenance and repair 
worker, five helpers, a first-line supervisor of office and administrative support workers, and a 
receptionist/information clerk, and will pay a total of approximately $350,000 in wages annually. The 
plan further indicated that it would hire five HV AC mechanics and installers who will be compensated 
by commission. Further, the plan claims that the company will create indirect jobs, target 
economically depressed communities, and generate over $5 .2 million in revenue by the end of its fifth 
year of operations. However, the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and 
staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized. Although the 
Petitioner submits evidence on appeal that he is the vice-president of a recently incorporated LLC in 
Florida, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence demonstrating that his company's 
future staffing levels and business activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to Florida 
and the United States. While the Petitioner expresses his desire to contribute to the United States and 
its underutilized business areas, he has not established with specific, probative evidence that his 
endeavor will have broader implications in his field, will have significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers, or will have other substantial positive economic effects in an economically underutilized 
business area of Florida or in the United States. The Petitioner must support his assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See id. Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner 
claims will happen, the record lacks evidence showing that creating 13 jobs, paying annual wages of 
6 
approximately $350,000, and generating revenue of over $5.2 million over a five-year period rises to 
the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner also discusses on appeal guidance from the USCIS Policy Manual related to special 
evidentiary considerations for national interest waiver petitions involving entrepreneurs and 
individuals with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) fields. 
We conclude that neither the Petitioner's appellate arguments nor the evidence in the record establish 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The guidance related to entrepreneurs seeking 
national interest waivers acknowledges that there may be unique aspects to the evidence submitted by 
entrepreneurial petitioners and discusses some of these types of evidence. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.5(D)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While the Petitioner describes his 
proposed endeavor as an entrepreneurial effort, he does not explain how this guidance helps establish 
that his proposed endeavor has national importance. Moreover, the record lacks many of the specific 
types of evidence that the guidance states may be relevant in entrepreneurial petitions, such as outside 
investments, incubator or accelerator participation, published materials about the Petitioner, 
intellectual property, and awards or grants. See id. 
We recognize the value ofHV AC and Smart Home services; however, merely working in an important 
field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. We conclude the 
Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele 
to impact the HVAC and Smart Home industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance, as his evidence and statements are not sufficient to 
demonstrate his endeavor has the potential to provide his claimed economic and environmental benefits 
to the United States. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his 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 his eligibility under 
the remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamas bad, 4 2 9 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 requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7