dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 18, 2024 In Re: 33961800 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a designer with specialization in brand creation, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of 
exceptional ability, 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 the Petitioner established 
he was an advanced degree professional, but had not demonstrated that a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 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 novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
The Petitioner stated he intends to provide product design services to companies in the United States 
that will result in growth and success of these companies, promote innovation, customer loyalty, and 
profitability , and have a positive impact on the publicity field in the United States. In the denial, the 
Director quoted the Petitioner's statements and identified numerous deficiencies in the evidence and 
explained specifically why the evidence did not establish the Petitioner 's eligibility under the 
Dhanasar framework. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief which generally reiterates the benefits 
of his profession and his qualifications and contends that he has established the national importance 
of his proposed endeavor but does not provide any new evidence or arguments which overcome the 
Director's determination. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 
1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting 
and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has 
squarely confronted this issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Court of 
Appeals in holding the appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). The Director thoroughly reviewed, discussed, and 
analyzed the Petitioner's national importance claims under the first prong of Dhanasar, including his 
personal statements, his job experience and skills, and the claimed economic impact of his proposed 
endeavor. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's experience and ability claims, those relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. Moreover, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of his business rather than 
the importance of designers or the overall money invested in the advertising industry. The relevant 
question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, 
we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. 
Further, "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. Also, "[a]n endeavor that has particularly 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that with a "rich tapestry of experiences," he will elevate the visual 
landscape of brand identities and set new benchmarks for the industry due to his mastery of design 
tools such as the Adobe suite. However, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient explanation 
detailing his innovation or "new benchmarks" he will create for the design industry as a whole. In 
addition, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient details, and the record does not adequately show 
through supporting documentation, how the Petitioner's services and improvements stand to 
sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner must support his assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly 
attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Because the Petitioner did 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, as a matter of discretion. 1 Further analysis of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 2 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 See 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 USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
(declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2