dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Culinary Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 26, 2023 In Re: 28051961 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of culinary arts, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 classification. 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, she 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion2, 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 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 Petitioner proposes to continue to grow her high-end bakery specializing in custom cakes and 
sweets in Florida. She further states that her "company will specialize in supporting U.S. and foreign 
companies by responding to [the] fast-growing product segment of the cake market." 
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. 
In her decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit, 
and we agree. Turning to the national importance of her endeavor, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not give due regard to her resume; business 
plan; letters of recommendation; expert opinion letter; and industry reports and articles. In addition, 
the Petitioner relies, in part, on her 16 years of experience as an entrepreneur to establish the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor. However, the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in 
previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from 
the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner 
has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national importance of her proposed work. 
The Petitioner also points to the staffing and revenue projections from her business plan, which project 
that the company will directly employ 40 full-time employees within five years and during that period, 
cumulatively pay wages of over $1.2 million and contribute over $1.5 million in tax revenue to the 
economy. Importantly however, these employment and revenue projections are not supported by 
details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be realized, nor do they demonstrate a 
significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national 
economy. Specifically, the record does not support that the direct creation of 40 additional full-time 
jobs in this sector or the expected tax revenue generated by the company will have a substantial 
economic benefit commensurate with the national importance element of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. While the Petitioner submitted industry data showing the economic impact of 
baking in Florida, she has not demonstrated how her business will have substantial positive economic 
effects on this sector, which generates billions of dollars in revenue and employs over 33,000 workers. 
We have also considered whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have broader implications 
in her field or industry. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. Likewise, the Petitioner has not established how her independent bakery stands to sufficiently 
extend beyond her customers to impact the culinary arts industry more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
Moreover, we reviewed the Petitioner's letters of recommendation from her professional 
acquaintances. The authors praise the Petitioner's abilities as an entrepreneur and the personal 
attributes that make her an asset to the workplace. While the recommendation letters evidence the 
high regard the Petitioner's professional acquaintances have for her and her work, none of them offer 
2 
persuasive detail concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how such impact 
would extend beyond her customers. As such, the letters are not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility 
under the first prong of Dhanasar. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner provided an expert opinion letter from a university 
professor in the marketing field. In addressing the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the author 
emphasizes that the Petitioner will contribute to the food service industry in the United States. 
However, the expert opinion letter is very general, significantly focuses on the importance of the 
overall food service industry and the impact immigrants play in the U.S. economy, and does not 
address the Petitioner's five-year business plan, the specific proposed endeavor described therein, its 
prospective substantial economic impact, or any broader implications of her intended business in the 
field of culinary arts. 
We observe that users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, 
professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of 
Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r. 1988). However, USeIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter of 
D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) ( discussing the varying weight that may be given expert 
testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). Here, much of the content 
of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we 
need not address her eligibility under the remaining prongs, and we hereby reserve them. 3 The burden 
of proof is on the Petitioner to establish that she 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 she has not established eligibility for 
a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 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 l&N Dec. 516. 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3