dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Operations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 13, 2023 In Re: 29022342 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, as a matter of discretion. 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. 
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 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, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• 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 determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as a professional 
holding the foreign equivalent of an advanced degree. The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner 
has established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner alleges that the Director "did not apply the proper standard of 
proof in this case, instead imposing a stricter standard, to [her] detriment." Except where a different 
standard is specified by law, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing 
immigration benefit requests. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375; see also Matter of 
Martinez, 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); MatterofSooHoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151,152 (BIA 1965). 
Accordingly, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing national interest 
waiver petitions. See I USCIS Policy Manual, E.4(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While 
she asserts on appeal that she has provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate her eligibility for a 
national interest waiver, she does not further explain or identify any specific instance in which the 
Director applied a standard of proof other than the preponderance of evidence in denying the petition. 
We first conclude that the Petitioner has presented insufficient and inconsistent evidence regarding the 
nature of the occupation in which she is seeks employment in the petition, and the proposed endeavor that 
she intends to pursue. This is important because to demonstrate that the Petitioner is eligible for a 
national interest waiver she must, among other things, provide evidence sufficient to show that her 
specific proposed endeavor (1) has both substantial merit and national importance and (2) she is well 
positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar analysis. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
She initially indicated in her Application for Alien Employment Certification, Form ETA-750 Part B, 
and in part 6 of the petition that she will be employed as a business operation specialist, performing duties 
such as "work[ing] with a manager or company administrator for improving operational efficiency, 
stating that her specific work falls within one of the Business Operations Specialists, All Other 
occupations which may be viewed athttps://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-1199. 
She also offered a business plan with the petition for the startup of her own company, G-, and shared 
that her "ultimate goal is to tum [G-] into the perfect ally for U.S. manufacturers and wholesalers of 
the [ electrical material, plumbing fixtures, and hardware] industries that wish to enter new markets 
abroad or expand their international trade." She noted that G- will also offer to services to Caribbean­
based companies who wish to have assistance with "their plans to sell to U.S. clients, develop reseller 
chains or pursue trade agreements." 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) noting that while the Petitioner intends to offer 
international trade and consulting services for U.S. and foreign companies, she had not adequately 
communicated the nature of her specific prospective endeavor. The Director asked for a detailed 
description of the Petitioner's proposed employment, supported with documentary evidence. But the 
Petitioner did not sufficiently address this aspect. In the RFE response, she newly contends that she will 
not only operate her own business, G-, but she will also seek direct employment with U.S. companies. 
She explains that her "proposed endeavor involves working for any company in need [of] superior 
business adminstration, international trade, marketing and logistics." The Petition also presented 
2 
alternative information about the occupation in which she will be employed by submitting the O*NET 
summary report for "General and Operations Managers," which may be viewed at 
https://www.onetonline.org /link/summary/11-1021.00. She contends that this report and other 
articles provided in support of the petition show how she "is developing a business in the United States 
through which [she] will leverage [her business]. .." 
As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for her to 
have a job offer from a specific employer. However, we consider information about her current 
positions to illustrate the capacity in which she intends to work in order to determine whether her 
proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar analytical framework. In the RFE response 
she states she is currently "working as Spanish Translator & Interpreter" at a charter school in Michigan, 
noting that her "main responsibilities in this role include bridging the language gap due to language 
limitations, assisting with [p]arent-[t]eachers conferences, behavior tracking for Spanish speakers, and 
providing main office adminsitrative assistance." She also claims to be engaged as a university professor 
where she "teaches at the master's and specilization levels." 
In addition, she provides documents about another company, S-, indicating that she is partial owner of 
this business, and presents a business plan reflecting that this firm will be "dedicated to the remodeling 
of [real estate]," offering aluminum and glass carpentry, bathroom remodeling, finish basement, drains, 
excavations in general, plumbing, [ and] electricity." But she does not further delineate the specific role 
she will play within this company's business operations. 
The Director denied the petition in part, determining the Petitioner did not provide evidence that would 
adequately demonstrate the nature of her specific endeavor. In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner 
must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. The 
burden is on the Petitioner to provide sufficient information and evidence relating to their proposed 
endeavor in order to show its national importance. While the Petitioner offers material that collectively 
presents a range of diverse activities that she might prospectively focus on ( e.g., international trade 
consulting, marketing and sales, real estate remodeling, teaching, language translation and 
interpretation, and general business management activities), she does not sufficiently describe the 
specific prospective occupation or proposed endeavor that she will focus on to illustrate the nature of 
the work that she will perform during her day-to-day work activities. The Petitioner must resolve 
these inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In her appeal brief: the Petitioner incorporates many of the same narrative explanations that she offered 
to the Director regarding her contention that her proposed endeavor is of national importance, which 
were considered by the Director when denying the petition. She does not, however, provide any new 
evidence or arguments which overcome the Director's determinations on appeal. For instance, she 
reaffirms her intention to pursue some of the activities that she identified at various stages of this 
proceeding, including operating her own international trade consulting business and seeking work with 
"any company in need of her superior business administration and management skills." But she did 
not provide a consistent, detailed description explaining the manner through which she will prospectively 
deliver these services, supported by documentary evidence as requested by the Director in the RFE. 
"Failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for 
denying the [petition]." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(14). Without more, the record does not offer evidence 
3 
sufficient to translate how her specific work stands to sufficiently impact U.S. interests or the relevant 
commercial trade industries more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she submitted evidence sufficient to demonstrate the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor and asserts the Director's determination to the contrary indicates 
that he did not give "due regard" to the evidence she submitted in support of the petition. Based on 
our de novo review, the Director's denial encompassed well-founded explanations about the 
deficiencies in the Petitioner's evidence. We conclude the record reflects that the Director carefully 
considered the Petitioner's evidence in analyzing the eligibility factors in this case. In evaluating the 
evidence, the truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Matter 
of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has not met her burden here. 
Therefore, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision as it relates to this prong. 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 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). 
Because the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. See 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). 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 Dhanasar 's 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4