dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Digital Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 07, 2024 In Re: 33060139 
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 either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an 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 that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest wavier. 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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) 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. A U.S. 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). 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, but further 
concluded she did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar 
framework. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
A. National Interest Waiver 
The first Dhanasar prong, 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. In Dhanasar we said that, in 
determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of 
the proposed endeavor, noting 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 
The record reflects that the Petitioner planned to own and operate her own digital marketing and 
mobile application consultancy company in the United States. Specifically, the Petitioner intended to 
offer consulting services in digital marketing, social media, and social networking "for the creation 
and reformulation of marketing and sales strategies for [her customers'] products and services, 
developing solutions and customized projects [to] enable them to obtain better financial results and 
boost their businesses." In addition to digital marketing solutions, she planned to offer application 
development services ranging from assisting with customization of existing applications to developing 
new applications to serve a variety of business needs. According to Petitioner's proposal and her 
company's business plan, the Petititioner's planned services relating to digital marketing consulting 
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 USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
and social media included marketing strategy; brand creation or re-branding; content planning; project 
management; search engine optimization (SEO); pay-per-click (PPC) services; as well as analysis and 
evaluations of marketing plans. Additionally, the company would develop mobile applications; 
mobile application testing, provide mobile application development consultancy with initial 
assessment and initial design services; and mobile application integration services. While the 
Petitioner intended to begin operations with one office in the central Florida region office, she planned 
to open three additional offices within the five years. 
In support of her endeavor, the Petitioner submitted a personal professional plan, a business plan, 
letters of recommendation from colleagues and former clients attesting to the Petitioner's business 
acumen and success in the field, an expert opinion letter, and various articles and industry reports 
discussing multiple federal initiatives aimed at promoting and developing small and medium-sized 
businesses, and the impact of these businesses to regional and national economies. 2 
Upon review of the complete record, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had established the 
substantial merit of her endeavor but did not establish its national importance. Specifically, the 
Director determined that although the record showed the importance of her field, it did not show the 
Petitioner's endeavor would result in broader implications to her field or offer benefits that extended 
beyond her company and its customers. Additionally, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had 
not shown her endeavor had a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise provide 
substantial economic benefits either to a region or nationally. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally asserts the Director erred in their review of the evidence and that 
the decision is "contrary to law or policy and unsupported by the evidence on record." However, the 
Petitioner does not point to specific examples of how the Director erred in their analysis or otherwise 
explain how the decision is contrary to law or policy. Instead, she submits the same claims and 
evidence previously submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) without 
addressing the Director's conclusions in their decision. The reason for filing an appeal is to provide 
an affected party with the means to remedy what they perceive as an erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact within a decision in a previous proceeding. 3 By presenting only general disagreement 
with the Director's decision, without identifying the specific aspects of the denial she considers to be 
incorrect, the Petitioner has failed to sufficiently identify the basis for her appeal. 4 This alone is 
grounds for dismissal. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that 
although the Petitioner established the substantial merit of her endeavor, she did not demonstrate its 
national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, and therefore we 
must dismiss the appeal. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter ofChawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Upon 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
3 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
4 Matter of Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. 354, 354-55 (BIA 1986). 
3 
a de novo review of the record, we disagree with the Petitioner's claims that the Director erred in their 
evaluation of the evidence. 
The Petitioner claims her endeavor is in the national interest because it impacts a matter that a 
government entity has described as having a national interest, has national or even global implications 
within her field, and has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial economic 
benefits. We disagree. 
On appeal, the Petitioner primarily relies on the importance of the marketing field as well as 
governmental interest in the success of small and medium-sized businesses to establish the national 
importance of her endeavor yet she does not address the Director's conclusion regarding the limited 
implications of her company. Specifically, she reasons that, because the federal government 
recognizes the significance of developing small and medium-sized businesses, and her business is both 
a small business and will serve small and medium-sized businesses, her proposed endeavor targeting 
these enterprises is of national importance. However, when considering the national importance of a 
proposed endeavor, the industry or customer base a petitioner will serve alone is not sufficient to 
establish national importance, instead we focus on the broader implications of "the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Similarly, the Petitioner has not shown the broader implications of her proposed endeavor, however 
admirable in helping companies to succeed, rise to the level of national importance. On appeal the 
Petitioner posits that her endeavor will have national or global implications because she will improve 
marketing campaigns for small and medium-sized business, which, in tum, will expand their customer 
outreach and brand visibility. Additionally, by providing application development services to 
companies, she will help her customers to improve their efficiency and competitiveness. Yet, despite 
the Petitioner's assertions on appeal, the record does not establish that these benefits, even ifrealized 
by her customers, would result in broader implications to her field. Generalized conclusory statements 
that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US. 
Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). In the same way teaching activities proposed by the 
petitioner in Dhanasar were not shown to have a broader impact on the field of STEM education, 
activities which only benefit the Petitioner's clients, like the offerings outlined in her business plan, 
would not have broader implications in the field. See Dhanasar at 893. 
And, while we recognize that the Petitioner has had a successful career operating her company abroad 
and successfully developed application solutions to assist her customers' business operations, a 
petitioner's expertise and record of success 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 the national importance of her proposed endeavor. Likewise, 
the testimonial evidence in the record, such as the recommendation letters, and expert opinion letter 
do not analyze the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or offer evidence of its impact, beyond 
commenting on her expertise or the importance of the field. For those reasons, this evidence is not 
probative on the national importance of her endeavor. 
Additionally, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish that her 
endeavor will result in the economic benefits contemplated in Dhanasar. See id. Although any basic 
4 
economic activity has the potential to positively impact a local economy, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how the economic activity directly resulting from her proposed endeavor would rise to 
the level of national importance. On appeal, she claims that by her company's fifth year of operations, 
it will directly employ 42 employees, resulting in a total payroll cost of $3,931,177 and the creation 
of 180 indirect jobs. Additionally, the Petitioner indicated that by the fifth year of operations she 
anticipates her company's gross revenue will be $6,388,183 with an annual tax payment of$1,141,280. 
While we recognize the Petitioner provided these employment and revenue projections in her business 
plan, the plan provides no explanation for the basis of these projections. Yet, even if the endeavor's 
revenue and job creation projections were sufficiently corroborated, they do not establish that the 
endeavor would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance, as the Petitioner has not 
explained how these proposed employment numbers and revenue will impact the area of intended 
operations. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
B. Eligibility for the Underlying Classification 
While the appeal must be dismissed as the Petitioner has not satisfied prong one of the Dhanasar 
framework, upon a de novo review of the record, we must withdraw the Director's determination that 
the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional. The record indicates that, after three-and-a-half 
years of study, the Petitioner earned a Brazilian bachelor's degree in administration. As confirmed by 
the provided evaluation, the Petitioner's Brazilian bachelor's degree in administration is the equivalent 
of "three and one half years of [b]achelor's-level study at an accredited institution of higher learning 
in the United States." The Petitioner then subsequently obtained a Brazilian bachelor's of science in 
accounting in 2019 after completing two years of study. Based on the combination of these two 
degrees, the evaluator concluded that the Petitioner "attained the equivalent of a [b]achelor' s [ d]egree 
in [b]usiness [ a ]dministration." 
However, while the Petitioner may hold the "equivalent of a [b]achelor' s degree," the record does not 
establish she attained a single-source "foreign equivalent degree" as required by 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 5 We cannot conclude that she qualifies as an advanced degree professional 
with anything less than a single-source "United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent." 
Moreover, we note that the Petitioner completed her bachelor of science in accounting in August 2019 
and submitted her petition in November 2022. As such, even ifwe were to agree with the Director's 
conclusion that the Petitioner had obtained a single-source foreign equivalent degree based on her 
education completed in 2019, we nonetheless would withdraw the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner is an advanced degree professional as the Petitioner did not acquire five-years of 
progressive, post-degree experience prior to filing this petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
5 Compare 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D) ( defining for purposes of a non immigrant visa classification, the "equivalence to 
completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree.") Where combinations of education or experience may 
equate to baccalaureate degrees, the Act and regulations state so explicitly. See section 214(i)(2)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1184(i)(2)(C) (allowing H-IB workers to have "experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such 
[bachelor's] degree"); see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) (stating H-IB workers may have "education, specialized 
training, and/or progressively responsible experience that is equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate ... 
degree"). The regulations pertaining to the immigrant classification sought in this matter do not contain similar language. 
5 
Nevertheless, as the resolution of the issues pertaining to the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested 
national interest waiver under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework is dispositive of 
this appeal, we will reserve consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested EB-2 
category6, as well as her asserted eligibility under Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 T&N Dec. 516, 526 
n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal in removal proceedings where an 
applicant did not otherwise qualify for relief). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion, and the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 That said, the Petitioner should be prepared to address this issue in any future filings requesting EB-2 immigrant 
classification as an advanced degree professional. 
6