dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management And Marketing

U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the
and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office 
Services 
In Re: 26958362 Date: MAY 23, 2023 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a general and operations manager and entrepreneur, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 classification . 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, determining the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the three-prong analytical framework. See 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889-90 (AAO 2016). 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. 
The Petitioner intends to provide marketing and event services through a company, __ 
,I located in Florida. On appeal, the Petitioner contends 
the importance of small businesses and the management consulting industry, economic effects from 
job creation, and the benefits of foreign direct investment. In addition, the Petitioner emphasizes his 
"expertise and sound academic background," "knowledge and skills," and "professional history." For 
consideration on appeal, the Petitioner offers a revised business plan for 1 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 
1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting 
and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has 
1 We will not consider new eligibility claims or evidence in our adjudication of this appeal. See Matter ofSoriano , 19 I&N 
Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (providing that if "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a 
reasonable opportunity to provide if for the record before the denial, we will not consider evidence submitted on appeal 
for any purpose" and that "will adjudicate the appeal based on the record of proceedings" before the Director); see also 
Matter of Obaigbena , 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). Here, the Petitioner could have submitted a revised business plan in 
response to the director 's request for evidence (RFE); instead, the Petitioner resubmitted the initial business plan in the 
RFE response. 
squarely confronted this issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Court of 
Appeals in holding the appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). The Director thoroughly reviewed, discussed, and 
analyzed the Petitioner's national importance claims under the first prong of Dhanasar, including the 
business plan, reference letters, revenue and payroll forecasts, distressed employment areas, and job 
creation. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's experience and ability claims, those relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. Moreover, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of operating rather than 
the importance of small businesses and the management consulting industry, economic effects from 
job creation, and the benefits of foreign direct investment. The relevant question is not the importance 
of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Further, "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. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that his 
proposed endeavor sufficiently extends beyond the company and its clientele to impact the industry or 
the field more broadly, at a level commensurate with 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. Id. at 893. As discussed by the 
Director, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the business plan's claimed potential of employing 134 
individuals across the United States, including some in distressed areas, or the projected $10 million 
revenue over five years has substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Id. at 890. The 
petition will remain denied. 2 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 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, further analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility under the second and 
third prongs would therefore serve no meaningful purpose. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that 
"courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues in the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal 
where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2