dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Corporate Event Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 19, 2024 In Re: 30635675 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, 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 that although the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional, he had not established that a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 1 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
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 USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion, 2 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. 
1 An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a 
bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor 's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
2 See also 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
The Petitioner proposes to create a corporate event production consultancy company "specializing in 
innovative, creative and technological solutions to tum ideas into events that move the American 
market in the _________ region" in Florida. The Petitioner further states that the 
"services of the enterprise include the areas of consulting, production, fundraising, infrastructure and 
promotion and sales so that [business-to-business] customers can achieve positive and quality results" 
and the "aim of the venture is to create connection from the 'inside out,' cultivating lasting 
relationships with our business partners." 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit, and we agree. 
Turning to the national importance of his endeavor, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not 
establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies, in part, on an August 2023 letter of intent to invest. However, as the 
Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing, we will not consider the letter here. 3 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l2); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. 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. We further indicated that "we look for broader implications" of 
the proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]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. 
The Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the 
United States. Specifically, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his company's future staffing 
levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United 
States. While the Petitioner claims that his company plans to hire 12 employees, generate direct and 
indirect jobs, and has the potential to employ U.S. workers and will bring substantial positive economic 
effects, particularly in economically depressed areas, he has not presented evidence indicating that the 
benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, although the 
Petitioner asserts that his endeavor stands to create substantial benefits to the U.S. economy, he has not 
offered sufficient evidence that the area where his company plans to operate in Florida will be an area 
3 The Petitioner filed the petition on November 28, 2022. 
2 
that is economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers in that area, 
or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit through 
employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity. While any basic economic activity has the 
potential to positively impact the economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic 
activity of his proposed endeavor would rise to the level of national importance. 
We also acknowledge the Petitioner's statements regarding the consulting industry. But the industry's 
importance overall is not sufficient to establish the national importance of the endeavor proposed here. 
As previously mentioned, when 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." Id. at 889. 
While the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to own and operate a corporate event production 
consultancy company, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to 
demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of 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. 
Here, we similarly conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands 
to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to impact the industry more broadly at a level commensurate 
with national importance. Nor has he documented that the particular work he proposes to undertake 
offers original innovations that contribute to advancements in corporate event production consulting 
or otherwise has broader implications for his field. For all these reasons, the Petitioner 's proposed 
endeavor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we 
need not address his eligibility under the remaining prongs, and we hereby reserve them. 4 The burden 
of proof is on the Petitioner to establish that he meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. The Petitioner 
has not done so here and, therefore, we conclude that he has not established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 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 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). 
3