dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Digital Advertising

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 14, 2024 In Re: 31110004 
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 individual of exceptional ability, 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 the Petitioner had not 
established 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 pursuant to 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 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. An 
advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for 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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101 ( a)(32) of the Act. 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a 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. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The 
Petitioner asserts his eligibility for EB-2 classification based on his degree, which was determined 
to be the equivalent to a bachelor's degree in legal studies, plus 18 years of professional experience. 
The Director agreed, and in their RFE concluded the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree, and thus qualifies for EB-2 classification. We agree. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
As an initial matter, we note that the Petitioner asserts the Director "imposed novel substantive and 
evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations." However, he does not point to 
specific examples of this within the Director's request for evidence (RFE) or denial. The Petitioner 
also does not offer a detailed analysis explaining how the Director "imposed novel substantive and 
evidentiary requirements" in denying the petition or support his assertion with any pertinent law or 
regulations. 
The Petitioner also generally alleges that the Director "did not apply the proper standard of proof in 
this case, instead imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applied the law, to [his] detriment .... " 
The standard of proof governing immigration benefit requests is "preponderance of evidence." Matter 
ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 75-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under the 
preponderance standard, we evaluate whether a petitioner's claims are "more likely than not" or 
"probably" true, but also consider the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of 
the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, the Petitioner 
does not further explain or identify any specific instance in which the Director applied a standard of 
proof other than the preponderance of evidence in denying the petition. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 375-76. 
The Director's RFE explained the deficiencies and concerns in the Petitioner's initial filing relating to 
Dhanasar's three prongs and provided a non-exhaustive list of documentation and material that the 
Petitioner could submit to address such deficiencies. Therefore, the Director followed the applicable 
2 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 USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
regulations and procedure in adjudicating this petition, and there is no basis for finding the Director 
held the Petitioner to a higher standard of proof. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(8). 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake and its "potential prospective impact." Id. at 889. 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. Id. The term "endeavor" is more 
specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation 
normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that 
occupation. For example, while engineering is an occupation, the explanation of the proposed 
endeavor should describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of engineering in which the 
person will work, rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of an engineer. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. As such, we will 
first identify the Petitioner's endeavor as shown in the record. Then, we will evaluate the Petitioner's 
evidence in support of the endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts that he will serve as the general and operations manager of his own business, 
_________________ (the Company), located in thel IFlorida 
area. The Company uses LED screens and large screens for events, shows and indoor digital signage 
within the advertising and hospitality industries. The purpose of the Company is to "provide digital 
advertising screens for various indoor locations such as companies, schools, hospitals, airports, and 
other similar places. It also provides digital screens for outdoor activities such as public events." The 
Petitioner asserts the Company offers customized solutions tailored to customer's specific projects 
and needs. 
The Petitioner's RFE response asserts that his endeavor is of national importance because the 
Company will "generate substantial ripple effects upon key commercial and business activities on 
behalf of the United States." He maintains that the Company is a "vital aspect of U.S. companies' 
development and operations - which contributes to a revenue-enhanced business ecosystem, and an 
enriched, productivity-centered economy." His RFE response highlights his professional roles and 
contends that "[his] professional record mirrors how his proposed work offers innovations and 
improvements of broad implications to the United States." For example, in one of his prior 
professional roles, he highlights that he led development projects, studied spaces for assemblies, 
recordings, and investments in audio visual equipment, as well as leading training for development of 
service team, assembly, and operation of equipment. He highlights that in this role, he also "did the 
fixed installations in the - Physical Preparation Room for Athletes 
- April/2018, in addition to several DVDs events, shows, and sporting events." He also provided 
photographs showing the installation of LED panels for a project at a church. The four photographs 
show him analyzing and designing the installation, assisting an employee in the installation, instructing 
an employee about the installation, and the completed installation. 
By its fifth year of operation, he asserts the Company will create approximately 29 jobs and have 
$452,950 in total investments. The Petitioner's business plan explains that the Company will create 
the following positions: chief executive officer, chief operations officer, chief marketing officer, 
hardware technician, software technician, creation designer technician, logistic technician, sales and 
3 
marketing professional, and administrative clerk. Furthermore, the Petitioner provided evidence that 
he has incorporated his business, in the state of Florida. He 
also provides a fictitious name registration showing that the Company is known as I I
I I and is doing business and has filed taxes in Florida for the years 2022 and 2023, showing 
gross sales of$5,960 and $24,025, respectively. He asserts that through the Company he will "promote 
business activities by enhancing the sales and revenue capabilities of U.S. companies, prompting 
growth within businesses, streamlining the U.S. business ecosystem, generating jobs, and improving 
other economic initiatives." As the endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education, we agree with the 
Director that the endeavor has substantial merit. Id. However, as discussed below, the Petitioner has 
not established that his proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that his endeavor is of national importance because 
he has more than 18 years of experience and specialized knowledge in various areas ofbusiness, which 
he will use to "enhance U.S. competitiveness." 3 However, the evidence provided does not establish 
that the nature of his work is of national importance. For example, the photographs he provides show 
him through the various stages of an installation process for LED screens. These photographs show 
how his services would benefit his clients and customers, but do not establish that the Company's 
services have a potential prospective impact beyond those customers and clients at a level commiserate 
with national importance. We further note that his assertions with respect to the shortage of project 
managers in the United States, like him, does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important 
under the Dhanasar framework because the U.S. Department of Labor directly addresses these 
shortages through the labor certification process. Finally, while the investor and recommendation 
letters he submitted show that he is a businessperson with a professional network that holds him in 
high regard, this evidence is relevant to our analysis under Dhanasar 's second prong, where we 
consider whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, but do not relate 
to the national importance of the endeavor. 
The Petitioner relies heavily on industry reports and articles concerning such topics as the importance 
of immigrant entrepreneurship to economic growth and American competitiveness, the importance of 
operations management in business, the shortage of project managers, and a report about management 
consulting in the United States. However, while the articles provide a context for some of his 
assertions related to the role that business executives play in our economy, and the importance of 
economic progress, they do not specifically discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or explain how 
his endeavor would have broader implications. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 75-76. Further, 
merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor, as we explained in Dhanasar. Id. at 889. In determining whether the 
proposed endeavor has national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 
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. 
3 We note that the Petitioner's appeal brief includes assertions in relation to a different petitioner ( a female individual with 
experience in medicine and business). While this information is limited to a small section of the brief, nonetheless, it 
creates doubt as to whether the assertions are also meant to support the Petitioner's appeal. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988) (standing for the proposition that any inconsistencies in a petitioner's evidence may lead to 
reevaluation of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition.) 
4 
As contemplated by Dhanasar, we examined the record to determine if there is sufficient evidence to 
conclude the Petitioner's "undertaking may have national importance ... because it has national or 
even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. at 893. Here, the Petitioner has not submitted 
evidence supporting the assertion that his method of designing and installing LED panels differs from 
or will improve upon those already available and in use in the United States. 
We also explained in Dhanasar 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 ... may well be understood to have national importance ." Id. at 890. We acknowledge that the 
Petitioner's business plan projects the creation of several jobs by its fifth year of operation, and that 
he has generated sales and income since his business began operations in 2022. However , his business 
plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it 
adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized . Matter ofChawathe , 25 
l&N Dec. at 376. As such, without more, he has not established that his endeavor will have substantial 
positive economic effects at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Here, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not established that his proposed 
endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his customers to impact his field more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance . Nor has he shown that the work he proposes to undertake 
offers original innovations that contribute to advancements or otherwise has broader implicat ions for 
his field. Furthermore , the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his specific endeavor has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our 
nation. Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly 
attributable to his work, the Petitioner has not established that benefits to the regional or national economy 
resulting from his endeavor would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated 
by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
C. Dhanasar's Second and Third Prongs 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third 
prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting 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 ofL-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 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor , and consequently 
that a waiver of the job offer and labor certification process, in the exercise of our discretion, is in the 
national interest. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5