dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Commercial Flooring

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 2, 2024 In Re: 30644125 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner is an entrepreneur intending to operate in the commercial flooring industry who 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 (NIW) of the job offer requirement 
attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 
8 U.S.C. § ll 53(b )(2). 
The Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding that the record established that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying visa 
classification, but he did not merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement in the national 
interest. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. 
Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will 
dismiss the appeal. 
First, we do not agree with the Director that the Petitioner presented evidence establishing he qualifies 
as an advanced degree professional under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). In particular, the 
Petitioner's evidence demonstrating he attained at least five years of progressive work experience in 
the specialty are deficient. Each of the letters were authored by the same individual, included his job 
title, and the years he worked at each entity. The deficiencies consist of: (1) each letter lacks a specific 
description of the duties he performed; (2) the letters' author was the accountant for each organization 
and not his former employer or trainer; and (3) the letters do not include the author's address. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g) mandates the inclusion of these elements. We therefore withdraw 
the Director's favorable finding as it relates to this requirement. 
After reviewing the entire record, we adopt and affirm the Director's ultimate determination relating to 
the Petitioner's NIW eligibility with the added comments below. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 
872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting the practice of 
adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has 
squarely confronted the issue"); Edwards v. US Att'y Gen., 97 F.4th 725, 734 (11th Cir. 2024) (joining 
every other U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the 
decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
In the end, the Petitioner proposes to start a commercial flooring business where he will employ U.S. 
workers. But the record does not suggest that the Petitioner's business management abilities or 
methodologies somehow differ from, or improve upon, those already available and in use in the United 
States. The Petitioner does not sufficiently describe the global or national implications of his "strategic 
and advanced approaches to remain competitive" or the broader implications of his introduction of 
"diversity and quality to the products offered by [his] company." The Dhanasar decision 
contemplates that "[a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national 
or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 893 (AAO 
2016). The Petitioner has not preponderantly established the extent to which the proposed endeavor 
will benefit the United States or how it will impact the field more broadly, which the Dhanasar 
precedent requires. 
The Petitioner contests the Director's determination that the benefits of the proposed endeavor would 
not travel far beyond the Petitioner's company, its employees, or its clients. Although the appeal 
attempts to refute this determination, the Petitioner's reliance on operational efficiency, quality 
control, cost management, and the transfer of his knowledge fall far short of showing the endeavor is 
of national importance. The types of impact of his entrepreneurialism and the resulting benefits to the 
economy are incremental and are not impactful at the level warranting a waiver of the job offer 
requirement. Lacking from the record is an indication of the extent to which the Petitioner's endeavor 
would make his claimed contributions, and as such, a showing that his endeavor would have 
substantial positive economic effects rather than incremental or nominal impacts. Nominal growth of 
an industry is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar 
framework. Id. at 889-90. 
Based on the support letters and the Petitioner's business experience, it appears that he could be a 
successful business owner in the United States, but that is not what the Dhanasar decision requires to 
warrant a waiver of the job offer requirement under its first prong. A petitioner must demonstrate the 
proposed endeavor will "impact the field ... more broadly" (Id. at 893) and that it has "broader 
implications" (Id. at 889). Such endeavors may have "national or even global implications within a 
particular field" (Id. at 889), "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or [have] other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance" (Id. at 890), 
or the potential to advance and affect U.S. strategic interests (Id. at 892). Ultimately, when we evaluate 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to 
evidence illustrating the "potential prospective impact" of his actual proposed work. Id. at 889. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2