dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Eco-Friendly Furniture Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 26, 2024 In Re: 33688789 
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 an advanced degree professional as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement attached to this classification. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that a waiver of a job offer 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 
2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 
537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 l&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. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is di scretionary 
in nature). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for classification as an advanced 
degree professional. The Director further found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit, as it falls within the above-mentioned range of areas of substantial merit, and that he is well­
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner established 
that a waiver of the job offer requirement and a labor certification is in the national interest. 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to unde1iake 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)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor is to "to undertake the manufacturing and selling of 
eco-friendly furniture ... in the United States with reused materials using the latest technological 
features and advanced wood processing and finishing concepts." He further asserts that "[b]y 
manufacturing in the U.S., the proposed endeavor promotes job creation, providing employment 
opportunities in manufacturing, supply chain management, and retail sectors, among others." He 
states that "utilizing reused material not only promotes sustainability but also stimulates the recycling 
and waste management industries, driving demand for these services and encouraging further 
innovation in eco-friendly practices," and he "can inspire other companies to adopt similar practices, 
leading to a ripple effect of positive environmental and economic impacts across various sectors." 
Further, he contends that his endeavor will benefit small to medium-sized businesses (SMEs) by 
operating as a "white label" manufacturer, enabling them "to expand their product lines to include 
eco-friendly options without the need to invest in complex manufacturing setups or processes." He 
also contends that he will "offer consulting services to other furniture manufacturers in the U.S. on the 
use of sustainable techniques," which "aligns with broader national objectives of reducing 
environmental impact and promoting public health." The Petitioner's business plan indicates that his 
company will "hire a total of 32 employees, resulting in payroll expenses of $1,670,828," and sales 
proceeds of $2,780,304 by its fifth year of operation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "failed to fully recognize and consider the arguments 
and evidence to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, including its potential to 
increase and improve domestic manufacturing" or the company's status as a "white label" service 
which "will allow SMEs to offer eco-friendly products under their own brands without the need for 
substantial investment in production capabilities." He further asserts that the Director did not consider 
how the proposed endeavor's commitment to sustainable manufacturing practices "will contribute to 
minimizing the environmental footprint of the furniture industry." 
2 
Here, the Petitioner relies primarily on the importance of domestic manufacturing in the United States, 
the growth of the global eco-friendly furniture market, and United States' interest in reducing the 
environmental impact of manufacturing processes and products. However, this misapplies the 
Dhanasar framework. 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." Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. In 
Dhanasar, 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. A local physical therapy business 
and a shortage of physical therapists in the United States does not render the proposed endeavor 
nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner's business plan provides a generalized description of the company's marketing and 
growth strategy and projected sales and claims that the endeavor has the potential to increase and 
improve domestic manufacturing; however, there is no explanation of the origins of the estimates or 
of how they were calculated. Further, although the Petitioner asserts that his company, based in
I I will generate "numerous employment opportunities across multiple sectors such as 
manufacturing, supply chain management, and retail," he has not provided evidence to establish that 
he would employ a significant population of workers in the area, that the area in which the company 
will operate is economically depressed, or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population a 
substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or tax revenue. 
Further, the Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor "will focus on disseminating new 
technologies and sustainable practices among other manufacturers which increases its impact by 
fostering a culture of innovation and ecological awareness across the industry." However, the record 
does not indicate by a preponderance of the evidence - that it is more likely than not - that the 
Petitioner's endeavor will "rninirnize[e] the environmental footprint of the furniture industry" or 
"inspire other companies to adopt similar practices, leading to a ripple effect of positive environmental 
and economic impacts across various sectors." Broad statements and projections regarding the 
potential growth of the Petitioner's business - based upon the growth of the eco-friendly furniture 
market and his proposed strategy to create "white label" partnerships with small businesses - do not 
demonstrate the prospective impact directly attributable to his proposed endeavor or establish how his 
company will impact the industry beyond his customers and the operations of his business. 
Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job 
creation directly attributable to his future business, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. 
regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level 
of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. In the end, the economic 
benefits that the Petitioner claims will result from his endeavor-the manufacturing and selling of eco­
friendly furniture using sustainable techniques and consultancy services to furniture manufacturers -
depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie 
between his proposed endeavor and the claimed economic results. 
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. 
3 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4