dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Culinary Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV . 15, 2023 In Re: 28650229 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chef, seeks second preference immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional 
ability. The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached 
to this EB-2 immigrant classification . See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § 
1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition . The Director concluded the Petitioner 
qualified as an individual of exceptional ability, but determined he did not demonstrate that his 
proposed endeavor would be in the national interest of the United States. The Director also concluded 
the Petitioner did not establish that he was well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor or that it 
would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and labor certification . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&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. 
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. 
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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion 1, 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, indicated in support of the petition that he was "an 
accomplished chef and BBQ master" and he emphasized his participation in barbeque competitions in 
Brazil and the United States. The Petitioner stated that in the United States he was "positioned to 
continue to showcase his talent and expand the gastronomy field through his specialized talents." The 
Petitioner explained that he would be employed in the United States as a sous chef for a barbeque 
restaurant called! land that he would help this company build new locations, contribute 
to the gastronomy field, and stimulate the American economy. He farther explained that he had trained 
hundreds of chefs and new business owners in Brazil and planned to bring the skills he learned from 
this to similar businesses in the United States, including helping restaurants in South Florida "modify 
their operations and run on a more cost- effective basis." 
The Petitioner also asserted that the national importance of his proposed endeavor was based on it 
being a STEM profession. The Petitioner pointed to his "advanced skill and training in gastronomy, 
which combines art and science for culinary perfection, and involves training in complex courses in 
Gastronomy." He asserted that his proposed endeavor would have substantial merit in the arts, as well 
as promote kitchen hygiene in the United States. The Petitioner submitted several articles from various 
publications discussing the shortage of restaurant and hospitality workers in the United States, 
barbeque food culture and science, and food sanitation to illustrate the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor. 
The Director later issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating that the provided evidence did not 
sufficiently establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would extend beyond his employer to 
impact the culinary field more broadly at level of national importance. The Director requested the 
Petitioner submit a more detailed description of the proposed endeavor and an explanation as to why 
it would have national or even global implications, or significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
substantial positive economic effects. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a personal statement explaining his proposed endeavor as follows: 
My proposed endeavor is to work in the United States as a Chef through my US 
company,~-------------~~ I will provide high-level Menus 
Planning and Preparations, Catering, BBQ competition participants' and Judges' 
training, Restaurant Consultancies, Academic Courses, and Cooking Classes services 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
to individuals, families, private businesses, and public institutions based on my 
expertise in fusion cuisine, BBQ, Churrasco Grill, street food and meat processing. 
In addition, the Petitioner emphasized that his "high-level Menus" would significantly contribute to 
broadening the horizon of the U.S. food industry by blending "the Brazilian Churrasco Grill 
philosophy with the US gastronomy traditions, producing the ultimate dining experience for US 
citizens." The Petitioner asserted that his proposed endeavor would enrich the U.S. culinary tradition, 
upgrade its rapidly expanding street food industry, transfer his expertise in churrasco grill and meat 
processing, provide certified training for barbeque competitors and judges, combat obesity and 
improve health in the United States, increase U.S. international stature in the culinary arts, and assist 
companies in the meat market in recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Petitioner submitted 
articles reflecting the growth of the street food market in the United States and contended his endeavor 
would "greatly contribute to filling the educational gap and improving the quality standards of street 
food offered, so as to improve the health and safety of American Citizens." He further stated that his 
endeavor would help to reduce the risk of heart disease, obesity, cancer, and diabetes. He likewise 
asserted that his cooking classes would be offered to those in marginalized communities and 
"contribute to the US goals of poverty reduction and combating joblessness" through improving the 
dietary intake and behaviors within these communities. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner pointed to a submitted business plan and emphasized hiring plans projected 
to hire a total to 14 employees by the end of 2027. He asserted that the U.S. economy would benefit 
from his endeavor as it would "help to strengthen the relations between Brazil and the U.S. and support 
the cultural exchange between the two nations." The business plan also stated that the Petitioner would 
benefit the local economy by sourcing local ingredients, rather than corporate, and "positively affect 
the overall street vendor industry by infusing a new lifeblood into it and expanding the market." The 
Petitioner indicated that he would also provide consulting services and share his knowledge with 
professionals in the food industry, including specialized Brazilian barbeque techniques, and "help 
create a highly qualified workforce ... contributing to fulfilling U.S. industry needs and benefiting the 
U.S. economy." 
The Petitioner further provided two expert opinion letters. The first fro m~----------~ 
from~ University stated that the Petitioner would collaborate with universities, schools, and 
scientific organizations to "contribute to U.S. scientific advancement through research and 
dissemination of knowledge about Culinary Arts & Science of Gastronomy." I I also 
indicated that the Petitioner would "use his experience to expand the skills of the workforce," would 
assist those in marginalized communities and contribute to poverty and joblessness reduction through 
his proposed cooking, and greatly contribute to health and reduce childhood obesity. I I 
I I further noted that entrepreneurs "undeniably contribute to economic growth." In addition, 
the Petitioner submitted another expert opinion letter froml Ian Assistant Professor of 
Nutrition Science atl !University, stating that the United States would "benefit from the 
expertise and skills of [ the Petitioner] who has advanced knowledge and skills in the areas of nutrition, 
food research, and meal design and management." 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had made a material change to the 
petition by asserting that he would be an entrepreneur in response to the RFE, whereas previously he 
had indicated he would be employed as a sous chef with a barbeque restaurant. The Director concluded 
3 
that the evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have potential 
prospective impact, and that it had significant potential to employ U.S. workers or offer substantial 
positive economic effects for the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the change from being employed by a barbeque restaurant to 
running it as its owner did not represent a material change in the endeavor, but a natural transition 
essential to the continuation of the proposed endeavor because the previous owner of the business had 
terminated paying rent. Further, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not sufficiently consider 
the evidence he provided in response to the RFE, namely his personal statement, articles, the business 
plan, and the two expert opinions. The Petitioner provides similar assertions as to the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor on appeal as were submitted in response to the Director's RFE. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. The Director 
did not clearly articulate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit, and upon 
review, we conclude he has sufficiently demonstrated that his endeavor would have substantial merit. 
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 his work. 
As a preliminary matter, we do not agree with the Director that the change in the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor from the petition to the RFE represented a material change. The Petitioner did not change 
his field of endeavor but, instead, provided additional facts about the expansion of his initial business 
plan. 
However, the Petitioner has submitted a proposed endeavor of sizeable scope, setting forth purported 
wide-ranging impacts spreading through various industries, thereby leaving its potential prospective 
impact uncertain. For instance, the Petitioner stated in his personal statement that his proposed 
endeavor would include a wide range of activities, including working as the chef and owner of his 
proposed barbeque restaurant in Florida, delivering catering services, training barbeque judges and 
participants, offering consulting services for restaurants, providing academic courses and cooking 
classes, coordinating with public institutions on gastronomy, and working in street food sanitation and 
meat processing industry services. In sum, it would appear difficult for one individual, regardless of 
skill and ability, to make a national impact in all these categories as asserted by the Petitioner. The 
Petitioner has not provided sufficient detail and supporting documentation on how he would have a 
potential prospective impact on each on these differing businesses, industries, and academic fields on 
a national level. 
4 
For instance, the Petitioner articulated that his proposed endeavor would significantly contribute to 
broadening the horizon of the U.S. food industry by blending "the Brazilian Churrasco Grill 
philosophy with the US gastronomy traditions, producing the ultimate dining experience for US 
citizens." However, it is not sufficiently clear what "broadening the horizon of the U.S. food industry" 
or "producing the ultimate dining experience" represents, and this is notable since it is listed as the 
direct outgrowth of his proposed endeavor. Likewise, the Petitioner asserted that his proposed 
endeavor would enrich the U.S. culinary tradition, upgrade the rapidly expanding U.S. "street food" 
industry, transfer his expertise in churrasco grill and meat processing, provide certified training for 
barbeque competitors and judges, combat obesity and improve health in the United States, increase 
the U.S. international stature in the culinary arts, and assist companies in the meat market in recovering 
from the COVID-19 pandemic. 
In each case, although the Petitioner submitted general articles regarding these issues, he has not 
properly explained or documented how his proposed endeavor would have an impact on each of these 
categories or fields on a national scale. For example, the Petitioner's business plan includes 
projections to hire a total to 14 employees by the end of 2027 and earn approximately $646,182 in 
revenue during the 2022/2023 fiscal year, including up to $1.29 million by the 2026/2027 fiscal year. 
However, it is unclear how the scale of the Petitioner's proposed business would have a national 
impact on an industry the Petitioner states is growing rapidly and accounting for about $2.5 billion in 
revenue annually while employing over 54,000 individuals. Further, given these projections, it is 
difficult to envision how the Petitioner's business would impact meat processing, barbeque training, 
obesity and health, or recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic on national levels. 
Further, it is noteworthy that the Petitioner's business and hiring plans include few specifics as to how 
it would proceed in several of its proposed endeavors involving consulting and training services, which 
it asserts would have broad implications in fields such as the restaurant industry, U.S. obesity and 
health, meat processing, gastronomy, among others. In fact, the Petitioner's hiring plans through 2027 
include no employees devoted to its proposed consulting and training endeavors, but only employees 
related to its Florida-based barbeque restaurant, leaving substantial uncertainty as to its assertion that 
he would have a prospective impact on a national level with respect to issues such as U.S. food 
sanitation and safety, obesity, joblessness, or poverty. The Petitioner further contended that his 
proposed endeavor would also strengthen relations between Brazil and the United States; however, it 
provides little support as to how a proposed Brazilian/U.S. barbeque business with 14 employees 
would have an impact on global relations between two large nations. Again, the Petitioner has 
provided wide ranging and generic prospective impacts resulting from his proposed endeavor 
extending across various fields but has not sufficiently articulated and substantiated how his endeavor 
would likely lead to these national impacts. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
As noted, the Petitioner also contends on appeal that the Director did not sufficiently consider the two 
expert opinions he submitted on the record. Similar to the Petitioner's assertions regarding the 
prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the two expert opinions lack support for 
their conclusions. The expert opinion froml !University stated that the 
Petitioner would collaborate with universities, schools, and scientific organizations to "contribute to 
U.S. scientific advancement through research and dissemination of knowledge about Culinary Arts & 
5 
Science of Gastronomy," and through his cooking classes, assist those in marginalized communities 
contributing to poverty and joblessne ss reduction. However, as we have discussed, the Petitioner 
provided few specifics as to how it would collaborate with universities or other organizations on 
gastronomy and included few plans for the provision of cooking classes in its business plan. I I
I I also stated vaguely that entrepreneurs "undeniably contribute to economic growth." It is not 
clear how this statement is relevant to establishing that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor 
would have a prospective impact on a national scale. 
Likewise,! !Assistant Professor of Nutrition Science atl !University, stated 
that the United States would "benefit from the expertise and skills of [the Petitioner] who has advanced 
knowledge and skills in the areas of nutrition, food research, and meal design and management." 
However, again, the expert opinion from I I submitted little support for this general 
conclusion and the opinion did little to illustrate the prospective impact of the Petitioner 's proposed 
endeavor on a national level. We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinion statements from 
universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. 
USCIS 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 '!, 19 
l&N Dec. 791 , 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding a noncitizen 's eligibility. The submission of letters from experts supporting 
the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility . Id. USCIS may even give less weight to an 
opinion that is not corroborated. Id. 
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. Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 
at 893. Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently 
extend beyond the clientele of his proposed barbeque restaurant. The Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated that his proposed endeavor would have a broad influence commensurate with national 
importance. 
The Petitioner has also not demonstrated that the endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the 
United States. As previously noted, the Petitioner set forth rather modest projections regarding his 
proposed barbeque restaurant in Florida, which at most, would hire 14 individuals w ithin the first, 
approximately, six years of its operation. The Petitioner does not sufficiently establish the benefits to 
the regional or national economy that would result from his undertaking such that it reaches the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, the Petitioner 
did not offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the areas where he would operate are economically 
depressed, he would employ a significant population of workers in these areas, or his endeavor would 
offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business 
activity, or tax revenue. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. 
Lastly, the Petitioner also asserts on appeal that his proposed endeavor would be of national 
importance in promoting U.S. competitiveness in the STEM fields. USCIS recognizes the importance 
of progress in STEM fields and the essential role of persons with advanced STEM degrees in fostering 
this progress, especially in focused critical and emerging technologies, or other STEM areas important 
6 
to U.S. compet1t1veness or national security. We may find that a STEM area is important to 
competitiveness or security in a variety of circumstances, for example, when the evidence in the record 
demonstrates that an endeavor will help the United States remain ahead of strategic competitors or 
current and potential adversaries, or relates to a field, including those that are research and 
development-intensive industries, where appropriate activity and investment, both early and later in 
the development cycle, may contribute to the United States achieving or maintaining technology 
leadership or peer status among allies and partners. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
However, the Petitioner here only vaguely asserts that the proposed endeavor would have an impact 
the STEM field related gastronomy, but as we have discussed at length, it does not sufficiently 
articulate how his work would specifically impact this field on a national level. Further, the Petitioner 
did not explain or document how his proposed endeavor would help the United States stay ahead of 
strategic competitors or adversaries or maintain technology leadership or peer status among allies and 
partners. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor based on its focus in a STEM field. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments with respect to the second and third prongs outlined in 
Dhanasar. 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7