dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: E-Commerce

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 4, 2024 In Re: 31160612 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur specializing in e-commerce, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 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. § l 153(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 , concluding the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualified for a national interest waiver. 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 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. 
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." Id. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCTS 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner established 
that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. 
The Petitioner initially stated that he intended to operate a company providing e-commerce operational 
and consultancy services to small businesses in the United States. The Director concluded that, while 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit, he did not demonstrate that his proposed 
endeavor had national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not give due 
weight to certain evidence and contends that the provided evidence demonstrates the national 
importance of his endeavor. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his endeavor in order to 
establish his eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The first 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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
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 T&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. Further, to 
evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we 
look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. In Dhanasar we 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Goining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Comts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
determined that the petitioner's teaching acttv1t1es did not rise to the level of having national 
importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. 
The Petitioner provided industry reports, articles, presidential administration fact sheets, an expert 
opinion letter, and a U.S. Department of Treasury memorandum. This documentation discusses 
immigration to the United States, the impact of the global pandemic on the economy, the role 
businesses play in the economy and in enhancing societal welfare, and the current administration's 
business initiatives. While this material provides general information related to business entities and 
factors that influence the economy, it does not provide insight into the Petitioner's plan to operate an 
e-commerce consultancy company or show how this specific endeavor would have a potential 
prospective impact of national importance. 
The record also includes letters ofrecommendation from the Petitioner's former associates discussing 
his skills and experience. We note that evidence of the Petitioner's experience and performance 
generally relates not to the national importance of an endeavor, as discussed in the first prong ofMatter 
of Dhanasar, but to the second,2 discussing whether an individual is well positioned to advance an 
endeavor. As such, the letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner provided the following description of his proposed endeavor in response to a request 
for evidence: 
[The Company] will be an e-commerce business specializing in various aspects of 
digital commerce, such as dropshipping, wholesale arbitrage, private labeling, and 
consultancy services, with a focus on consumer-packaged goods, particularly in the 
kitchen and home goods sector. 
In addition to its retail operations, the Company will function as a leading digital 
agency and consultancy firm, providing expertise and guidance to businesses and 
partner companies in the field of dropshipping. It will offer valuable insights into e­
commerce practices, such as marketplace management, inventory management, search 
engine optimization (SEO), digital marketing, and data scraping. 
As a business developer, [the Petitioner] is equipped to help enable small businesses to 
expand and accelerate the economic recovery, particularly by disseminating the cutting 
edge "dropshipping" technique through his business. 
2 Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, determinations 
concerning the second and third prongs are unnecessary to the ultimate decision; therefore, they will be reserved in this 
decision. 
3 
While the Petitioner offered an overview of the services he intends to provide through his company, 
his assertions regarding the national importance of his endeavor rely generally on the growing presence 
of e-commerce in the global marketplace and the increased use of the dropshipping model in online 
retail. The Petitioner has not provided independent evidence or otherwise explained how his company, 
one of many operating in the field of e-commerce, would have a prospective national impact on the 
field or on an economy of any scale. For example, the business plan anticipates hiring 15 individuals 
by the conclusion of its fifth year of operation and generating a net revenue of $3,665,191. The plan 
does not, however, provide an objective basis for these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated 
by probative evidence sufficient to demonstrate that it is likely the company will have a positive 
national economic impact or a national prospective impact within the field. And while the business 
plan contains statements referring to revenues and partnerships attained by the company, the record 
does not include documentation supporting those statements. A petitioner must support assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner initially described his company as specializing in e-commerce, including the provision 
of business development consultancy to assist in the growth of small businesses. The Petitioner 
submitted an expert opinion letter discussing in general terms the importance of small businesses to 
the economy and asserting that the proposed endeavor aligns with federal initiatives to support small 
businesses. He also emphasized that organizations investing in business development are more likely 
to grow and positively impact the economy. While this letter discusses the collective influence of all 
businesses, in general, on the economy, it does not specifically detail how the Petitioner's company 
would impact the economy on a national scale. 
The Petitioner also stated that his company would provide dropshipping services, a business model in 
which products purchased from online stores are shipped directly to customers by suppliers or 
manufacturers. The expert opinion letter provided the following: 
With the help of its private dropshipping accounts, [the company] will help generate 
income and provide comprehensive dropshipping agency and advisory services to 
potential clients. A third of online businesses have adopted dropshipping sales as their 
primary work model . . . . The United States Dropshipping Market size was estimated 
at USD 13.92 billion in 2020, is expected to reach USD 15.64 billion in 2021, and 
projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 9.65% reaching USD 
24.20 billion by 2026. 
The expert opinion letter does not clarify how the Petitioner's company would impact or demonstrate 
its own importance to the economy or industry within such a massive market. On appeal, the petitioner 
reiterates his company's intention "to deliver high-quality kitchen and home goods at affordable 
prices" and "utilize outsourced managers who get paid to set up the stores, and process orders for 
fulfillment on Amazon." He also states, "Entrepreneurs like [the Petitioner] who specialize in various 
aspects of digital commerce contribute to technological advancement within the country." He further 
asserts the following: 
[The expert opinion letter] notes that the impact of [ the Petitioner's] abilities in business 
development could affect the economy and technological competitiveness "on a 
4 
national level due to his capacity to provide innovative solutions that could support 
numerous applications and endeavors in the United States." 
As a business developer, [the Petitioner] is equipped to help enable small businesses to 
expand and accelerate the economic recovery, particularly by disseminating the cutting 
edge "dropshipping" technique through his business. 
Neither the Petitioner nor the expert opinion letter explain how the Petitioner's entrance into a market 
of the magnitude described would have positive implications for that market or the economy. The size 
of the market itself: according to the record, would not support the assertion that dissemination of the 
"technique" by the Petitioner's company would have a national impact on the economy. Further, the 
expert opinion letter's assertions of the potential of the Petitioner to provide innovative solutions that 
could support multiple endeavors in the United States is vague and does not provide insight into how 
his company would impact the dropshipping market at the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the nation. Specifically, he 
has not shown that his business stands to provide substantial economic benefits to any particular 
locality or to the United States overall. While the business plan explained in general terms that his 
company's services would benefit the U.S. economy because it would help businesses grow, that 
reasoning was not based on any objective evidence related to his specific proposed endeavor to operate 
a consultancy company. As such, the business plan does not demonstrate that the prospective 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. 
Although the Petitioner claims that his company will positively benefit a low-income area, it is not 
clear how a business of the size and scope described in the business plan would positively impact a 
given region in which either his employees or clients are located. The Petitioner has not provided 
evidence to show that he would employ a significant population of workers in a particular region, nor 
has he shown that his proposed endeavor would offer a region or its population substantial economic 
benefits through employment levels, business activity, or tax revenue. 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility 
under the Dhanasar framework. 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). 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor has national importance. As the 
Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not 
established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6