dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Strategy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 01, 2024 In Re: 32371282 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business strategist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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. § l 153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that she is an individual of exceptional ability, that the proposed endeavor was of national 
importance, the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor, or that it would be beneficial to 
waive the requirements of a job offer. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying 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. 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F) . 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits detennination to decide whether the evidence 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individual s of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2) , https://www.uscis .gov/policy-manual /volume-6-part-f-chapter-5 . 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree of expertise and will 
substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United 
States. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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 I&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,3 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. 
Id. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner claimed eligibility for the EB-2 immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional 
ability. However, because we conclude that she is not eligible for, and does not merit as a matter of 
discretion, a national interest waiver, and this determination is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the issue of her eligibility as an individual of exceptional 
ability. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ( 1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make 
"purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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). 
The remaining issue to be determined 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 agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. 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. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
3 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 unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
Regarding her claim of eligibility under Dhanasar 's first prong, the appeal brief states that the Petitioner 
intends to act as a business strategist for clients. The brief contends that the Petitioner's endeavor will 
have "profound implications in enhancing and sustaining economic growth, promoting innovation, 
reducing inequalities, and fostering strong, transparent, and accountable institutions, both at the national 
and potentially global levels." The evidence provided does not demonstrate that this specific endeavor is 
of national importance. 
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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. To evaluate 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to 
evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of her work. 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
The Petitioner will work as a business specialist. The Petitioner's professional plan submitted in response 
to the request for evidence (RFE) states that the Petitioner will provide services in accounting, finance, 
taxation, and business management. Her professional statement further illustrates that she intends to 
develop comprehensive financial management systems for clients, provide financial planning, fraud 
identification, tax planning services, and training for accounting and finance professionals. She also 
intends to offer a comprehensive research and development service through collaborative research with 
academic institutions, professional associations, and industry experts. The Petitioner has not explained 
logistically how she would act in these various and wide-ranging capacities for several clients. Anyone 
seeking this waiver must identify "the specific endeavor" that they propose to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 
I&N Dec. at 889; see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual 
('The term 'endeavor' is more specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not 
only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to 
undertake specifically within that occupation."). 
Here, the Petitioner has not described how her employment as a business specialist will have a broader 
impact on the field beyond the individual clients she intends to partner with. The appeal brief argues 
that by improving businesses through her strategies and anti-fraud monitoring system, her endeavor 
will improve societal welfare, foster "an environment that is resilient to fraud and corruption," and 
play a "crucial role in establishing peace and justice." The Petitioner asserts that because her business 
will have these wide-ranging impacts, her endeavor is nationally important. Yet the brief neglects to 
supply explanations to uphold these conclusory statements as it does not illustrate how providing 
financial business consulting services to individual companies will have these far-ranging impacts as 
claimed. Contentions require support to underpin them, as assertions themselves do not constitute 
evidence. See, e.g., Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998) ("statements in a brief, motion, 
or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight"). 
3 
The brief further avers that as her work will impact subjects of national initiatives, such as the 
prevention of money laundering, small businesses, and the securities industry, it is nationally 
important. However, these arguments ignore the requirements we set forth in Dhanasar. It is not the 
importance of the field that determines an endeavor' s national importance, but rather how the specific 
endeavor will impact the field on a level commensurate with national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 
I&N Dec. at 889. 
Moreover, she has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, may have 
national importance. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. In the appeal brief, the Petitioner contends that 
her endeavor "presents a remarkable potential for creating employment opportunities and generating 
positive economic effects in the U.S." To support these arguments, the brief points to the various 
ways the Petitioner will improve her clients' businesses. Additionally, the brief contends that the 
proposed endeavor will reduce inequalities by aiding economically distressed communities through 
its services to small businesses. Nonetheless, the Petitioner again does not provide an explanation as 
to how her work with individual companies would have substantial positive economic effects on the 
level of national importance. The Petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate national importance either. 4 The Petitioner provided a 
few letters of recommendations 5 that maintain that the Petitioner's endeavor will have an important 
economic impact, but do not specify how the Petitioner's services to individual clients will have this 
claimed economic impact. For example, one letter describes that the Petitioner's work is "essential 
for the sustainable growth of the economy," yet it does not illuminate how the Petitioner's individual 
assistance to her clients will scale to have such an economic impact. Another letter details the 
Petitioner 's work in developing an anti-fraud tax software, averring that this project "is set to redefine 
the fight against fraud in the U.S." Nevertheless, the letter does not explain how the fraud tool in 
question would have such impact. Contentions require support to underpin them, as assertions 
themselves do not constitute evidence. See, e.g., Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. at 51. The Petitioner's 
personal statement describes her anti-fraud monitoring system and how she intends to use it "to 
eliminate financial losses due to disorganization, and to prevent and solve cases of corruption" within 
her clients' companies. The record does not establish that the software would be used beyond her 
clientele. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from Dr. a a professor at ____, 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by a 
4 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 The Petitioner also presented her resume, past salary records, other letters of recommendations attesting to her skills, 
association memberships, work history documentation , educationa l certificates, and other educational history 
documentation. Neverthel ess, the Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it 
points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments, training, and experiences, not the specific endeavor's potential impact in 
business field. Generally , this type of evidence is more appropriate for the second prong when determining if the petitioner 
is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
4 
pet1t10ner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
Nonetheless, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information 
in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert 
opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here the advisory opinion is of little 
probative value as Dr. ______ evaluation of national importance focuses on Brazilian 
investment in the United States and the importance of small businesses. Dr. 
concludes that because the Petitioner's endeavor supports these subjects of national importance, her 
endeavor is also one of national importance. As noted above, it is not the importance of the field that 
determines an endeavor's national importance, but how the specific endeavor will impact the field on 
a level commensurate with national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. From the 
evidence provided, the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor will have a national 
impact on the business field. 
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally 
important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond her clients to affect the region 
or nation more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. She has not shown that benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As 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 Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25 (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. at 526 n.7 (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 find 
that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5