dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management And Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 26, 2024 InRe : 31474515 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business manager and consultant, 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 Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The Director dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider. 
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 qualify for EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
If 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 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 discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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 unpublish ed decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Classification 
Although the Director did not address the Petitioner's eligibility for EB-2 classification, the record 
establishes that he qualifies for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree 
or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is 
considered the equivalent of a master's degree. Id. The Petitioner submitted evidence of his five-year 
Licentiate in Business Administration degree from the _______ in Venezuela and an 
evaluation of his educational credentials concluding his degree is the equivalent of a United States 
bachelor's degree in business administration. The Petitioner also submitted letters from employers 
demonstrating he has over five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in his specialty. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has demonstrated that he qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced 
degree professional. 
B. Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner is a business manager and consultant who has worked for several multinational 
companies. In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted a professional 
plan stating he would be the director of a company offering financial and 
administrative services, consultancy and specialized advice to small, mid-sized and large private and 
public companies. On motion, the Petitioner submitted another professional plan stating his company 
would also foster financial literacy among high school students and would provide consulting in both 
business administration and financial education for individuals, entrepreneurs, educational 
institutions, nonprofit organizations, and businesses and corporations. 
C. National Interest Waiver: Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. 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. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. We agree. 
The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Id. at 889. This consideration may include whether the 
proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically 
2 
___________________ 
depressed area), has other substantial pos1t1ve economic effects, has national or even global 
implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 
889-90. The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor would have 
substantial positive economic effects or broader implications in his field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director did not sufficiently explain whether his motion to reopen 
was denied and the reasons for denial. However, the Director analyzed the relevant evidence 
submitted in support of the Petitioner's joint motion to reopen and reconsider and stated: "Your 
motion does not provide new facts, nor does it give reasons for reconsideration supported by any 
pertinent precedent decisions. Accordingly, your motion is dismissed per 8 CFR 103.5(a)(4)." 
The Petitioner also claims the Director erred by noting that the Petitioner did not submit evidence of 
the legal formation of his company and stating "it is unclear" if the Petitioner could contribute to the 
industry. The Petitioner asserts the Director imposed a higher standard of proof than preponderance 
of the evidence and claims the Director's contradictory and ambiguous statements did not provide 
adequate notice of the reasons for denial. The Petitioner also submits copies of our decisions in prior 
cases where we withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the matters to the Director for issuance 
of new decisions. These decisions were not published as precedents and bound only the parties 
involved in those individual cases. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Although the Director's decision contains 
some language that is not directly relevant, de novo review of the record does not establish any error 
in the Director's ultimate determinations. 
To establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner initially submitted letters 
from three past employers who praise his work for their companies. I 
and I all state the Petitioner informed them about his project to continue his professional 
development within the United States. They all express confidence that his experience "will allow 
him to provide relevant information to his employer, advising them to make smarter decisions for the 
improvement of their business in the short and long term, which will allow them to achieve greater 
expansion and thus generate sources of employment." 
On motion, the Petitioner submitted additional support letters 
andl Iall praise the Petitioner's 
skills and experience and recommend him "for his exceptional qualifications and the value he would 
bring to developing educational programs in business administration and financial principles for high 
school students in underfunded institutions." 
The letters submitted initially and on motion are relevant to the second Dhanasar prong, which shifts 
focus to petitioners themselves and assesses whether they are well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. However, in assessing national importance, we focus on 
the potential prospective impact of the specific proposed endeavor. Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner's 
support letters praise his work, experience and abilities, but they do not address any national or global 
implications of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, or other broader implications it would have in the 
fields of business administration and financial education. Cf id. at 892 ( stating Dhanasar submitted 
probative expert letters describing the importance of his specific research as it relates to U.S. strategic 
interests). 
3 
I 
I The Petitioner also submitted a letter from of I 
expressing her opinion that the Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver. Ms.I I states 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance because the Petitioner is trained in 
International Financial Reporting Standards, has worked in important multinational companies, and is 
qualified to teach and train American professionals. Again, the Petitioner's experience and 
qualifications are relevant to the second Dhanasar prong which shifts the inquiry to the foreign 
national. When determining national importance, however, we focus on "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. In his professional plan submitted on motion, 
the Petitioner states his company would design "personalized educational programs," develop 
curricular materials, and offer training and professional development programs, but he does not discuss 
how such work would extend beyond trainees and individual institutions to impact his field more 
broadly. 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, 
the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
his clientele to impact the fields of financial education and business administration more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner submitted articles on financial education of children and teens, financial literacy and 
illiteracy, racial disparity and inequity in school funding, and public-school funding in Texas. While 
these issues are relevant to financial education, the determination of national importance does not 
focus on the importance of issues affecting the field in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Here, none of the articles mention the 
Petitioner or address the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner claims his proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects even if 
he "were to operate the business as a sole proprietor without any employee hires." In Dhanasar we 
discussed significant employment of United States workers as one possible indicator of national 
importance, but the Petitioner is correct in stating such employment is not required to establish national 
importance. On appeal, the Petitioner does not, however, specify how his proposed endeavor would 
have substantial positive economic effects beyond the individuals and companies that may retain his 
services. See id. at 890 ( discussing substantial positive economic effects as indicative of national 
importance). 
The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor would have substantial pos1t1ve 
economic effects; or national, global, or other broader implications within the fields of business 
administration and financial education demonstrating national importance. 
D. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor and he 
does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs of 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, he has not demonstrated that he 
is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5