dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Culinary Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 19, 2023 In Re: 29200309 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chef and entrepreneur in the culinary field, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor or that it would be in the United States' 
interest to waive the requirement of a labor certification. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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 te1m "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 discretion1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also 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). 
• 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. 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced 
degree professional. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established eligibility 
for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. While we do not discuss each piece of 
evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
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 l&N Dec. at 889. 
On the Petitioner's Form 1-140, Part 6, items 1 and 3, he wrote that he plans to work as a 
chef/entrepreneur in the culinary field. He described his duties as "direct and may participate in the 
preparation, seasoning, and cooking of salads, soups, fish, meats, vegetables, desserts, or other foods" 
(all capital letters removed). To support his petition, he provided astatement, explaining that he plans 
to manage and operate his own business consulting company in the field of gastronomy. His endeavor 
will involve: 
[P]roviding consultancy for already established businesses and also in the opening of 
new ventures, from the preparation of the business plan, covering physical structure, 
machinery, menus, technical sheets, training for the work team and monitoring the 
beginning of the operations... [i]t is important to emphasize that the company will not 
be limited to a single sector, being able to perform consulting services for companies 
in different areas. The Company will help American companies to invest and open 
branches in Brazil, and international companies to invest or open branches to operate 
in the US, thereby increasing FDI - Foreign Direct Investment, within the United 
States... 
He further stated that he will: 
Coordinate and supervise business activities to ensure they produce the desired results 
and are consistent with the company's overall strategies. I am also responsible for 
ensuring organizational compliance with regulations, laws, procedures, and policies, 
and I monitor the company's revenue and profits, as well as its financial and non­
financial reports, so as to devise solutions and improvements. 
His business plan states that the Petitioner's company "will be inserted" into the "[m]anagement and 
[c]onsulting [i]ndustry." His company "will also carry out [s]ocial [p]rojects in underserved areas and 
underdeveloped communities, focusing on teaching gastronomy and business development, through 
2 
the educational and professional experience of [the Petitioner], for low-income families, with the 
objective of generating extra income, producing and selling what was taught with a market vision." 
Upon de nova review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not identified a specific 
proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's proposed work is very expansive and includes the ownership and 
operations of his own business, compliance, teaching, social projects, providing business development 
and management consulting for businesses in any sector, and FDI. In Dhanasar, we held that a 
petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 
889. Any one of these activities could constitute a full-time job. The Petitioner offered little indication 
of whether he plans to perform these activities concurrently or consecutively, or how much time he 
will devote to each activity. This is material, as each of these activities would necessarily produce 
different impacts. For instance, the Petitioner's activities as a chef in preparing a soup is quite different 
than his activities consulting for a U.S. business intending to open a healthcare chain in Brazil, yet 
each of these activities appear equally possible under the proposed endeavor, as described. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that his endeavor 
involves "working for any company in need of his superior cu Ii nary skills" ( emphasis supplied). This 
statement appears to be inconsistent with the Petitioner's plans to own and operate his own business 
and adds further confusion to what the proposed endeavor involves. The Petitioner has not offered a 
sufficient explanation for how these various diverse activities realistically fit together into one 
endeavor. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is not sufficiently 
specific or consistent. 
The second Dhanasar prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To 
determine whether they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors 
including, but not limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. Id. at 890. 
The evidence suggests that the Petitioner earned a two-to-three-year degree (Tftulo de Tecn61ogo) in 
gastronomy technology, agraduate course (Latu Sensu) certificate in teaching and learning evaluation, 
as well as the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree in environment and regional development. 
While the Petitioner's academic career is commendable, we conclude that it does not reflect an 
education that would lend itself to business development and management consulting, 
entrepreneurship, or foreign direct investment. Likewise, the Petitioner's experience as a culinary 
professor, chef, and event planner does not support a finding that the Petitioner has experience in 
business development and management consulting, entrepreneurship, or foreign direct investment. 
Accordingly, even if we could synthesize the Petitioner's expansive proposed activities into a single 
proposed endeavor, the Petitioner's education and experience would not necessarily support a 
conclusion that he is well positioned to advance the endeavor, at least insofar as his activities relate to 
business development and management consulting, entrepreneurship, or foreign direct investment. 
Therefore, we withdraw the Director's finding that the Petitioner established eligibility under the 
second Dhanasar prong. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues the Director did not properly consider the evidence and applied a 
heightened standard of proof in the adjudication of the petition. Specifically, the Petitioner states the 
Director did not give due consideration to his experience and professional qualifications; business 
plan; letters of recommendation; and industry reports and articles. In support, the Petitioner relies 
upon the evidence and arguments he previously submitted. However, as explained above, the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor is not sufficiently specific or consistent, nor has he established that he 
is well positioned to advance his endeavor. 
In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the 
specific proposed endeavor to determine whether (1) it has both substantial merit and national 
importance and (2) the foreign national is well positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar analysis. 
Because the Petitioner has not narrowed his activities into a specific and consistent proposed endeavor 
or shown how his education and experience position him well to carry out his endeavor, we cannot 
conclude that he meets either the first or second prong, or that he has established eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. 
111. CONCLUSION 
The documentation in the record does not establish a specific and consistent proposed endeavor. 
Furthermore, the record does not establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his 
endeavor. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Further analysis of his eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar would serve no 
meaningful purpose. 
Because 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 INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on 
appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first and second prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4