dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Economics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24834017 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 17, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a professor of economics, seeks 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. § 
1153(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition . While the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, they further determined he did not 
demonstrate the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor or that it would be in the national interest 
of the United States. The Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that he was well 
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor or that it would be beneficial to the United States to 
waive the requirements of a job offer and labor certification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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. 53 7, 53 7 n .2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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." 
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 USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature) . 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a native and citizen of Argentina, indicated that he was a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree because he had earned a doctorate in business and administration, a 
master's degree in strategic marketing, and a bachelor's degree in public accounting. The Petitioner 
stated that he is employed at an Argentine university as a professor of economic sciences. 
The Petitioner explained that he planned to work as a "special business consultant" in the United States 
building on a marketing study he had conducted related to small and medium sized Latino owned 
businesses, noting that he planned to develop "200 companies and entrepreneurs" and "university 
programs." The Petitioner indicated in an "investigation report" that his "contribution to society" 
would be to "assist companies to achieve that they are unblocked and continue in the process and reach 
the next [stage] of MATURITY" using his "techniques" and "restructuring." The Petitioner further 
stated that he would transmit to clients his "Approach and Management Techniques" to "assist 
companies that have been blocked and cannot leave the EMBRYONIC stage." The Petitioner also 
provided a a "market research paper" explaining that the mission of I 
was to advise organizations to achieve a competitive position in the market by training their 
"human capital" to acquire more knowledge and skills through seminars, tests, games, books, 
programs, and manuals. 
Later the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), asking the Petitioner to submit a detailed 
description of his proposed endeavor, its substantial merit, and how it would be of national importance 
to the United States. In response, the Petitioner stated that his investigations determined the "financial 
practices, experience, literacy and condition of Hispanics," such that he would help "low-income" 
people of Latino origin "train and improve," including implementing a "systemic program" for small 
and medium sized Latino owned businesses to improve their productivity. The Petitioner indicated 
that "a program [would] be developed [for] each company according to their levels, on management 
and technological aspects, to accelerate understanding, [ and] assimilate and change within the 
organization." 
In denying the petition, the Director stated that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was not sufficiently 
defined and that it was not properly clear what he intended to accomplish in the United States. Further, 
the Director determined that the Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate the substantial merit or 
national importance of his work, reasoning he did not establish that his work would have implications 
beyond the individual companies or business partners he served. As such, the Director concluded the 
Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor would have substantial merit or national 
importance. On appeal, the Petitioner largely reiterates his prior assertions, again stating that based 
on his research he could assist small and medium sized Latino owned businesses to progress beyond 
the "infant stage" to a stage of "professional maturity" where they would generate more income, jobs, 
and higher productivity. 
2 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. 
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 I&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. 
First, as noted by the Director, the Petitioner has not sufficiently articulated what his proposed 
endeavor would be in the United States. The Petitioner provided vague and varying statements related 
to his proposed endeavor. For instance, it is not entirely clear what role or position the Petitioner 
would work in, as he only ambiguously stated that he would work as a "special business consultant." 
In contrast, the Petitioner elsewhere in the record appeared to suggest that he would establish his own 
consulting company calledl I However, the Petitioner only 
mentioned this proposed business one time on the record and provided little detail and documentation 
regarding this proposed new business, its specific plans, staffing levels, or other such probative 
information and evidence. For example, the Petitioner referred to "200 companies and entrepreneurs" 
and "university programs ," but provided little detail as these projected clients and the nature of his 
planned programs. Likewise, the Petitioner did not discuss in detail the techniques, restructuring, 
seminars, games, books, systematic programs, and other such methods he would use to assist 
companies in moving from the "embryonic stage" to "maturity." 
In the RFE, the Director requested that the Petitioner submit a detailed description of his proposed 
endeavor, but in response, he again provided the same ambiguous assertions as to his proposed 
endeavor discussed above. Therefore, in sum, because the Petitioner has not submitted a clear 
proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that it would have substantial merit or national importance as 
defined by Dhanasar. The Petitioner must resolve ambiguities in the record with independent , 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). 
Further, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement , we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. 
Although the Petitioner's statements reflect vague intention to provide consulting services to small 
and large Latino owned businesses, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to 
demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. In Dhanasar we determined that the petitioner 's teaching activities did not rise to the 
level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Dhanasar , 
26 I&N Dec. at 893. Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond his clientele, and it is not sufficiently clear in what field his ambiguous 
business plans would have an impact. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed 
3 
endeavor , even if sufficiently clear, would have a broad influence commensurate with national 
importance. 
The Petitioner has also not demonstrated that the endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the 
United States . As discussed , the Petitioner mentioned a proposed company one time on the record , 
but did not detail its future staffing levels, business activity, and tax revenue, to demonstrate that it 
would provide substantial economic benefit to Florida or the United States. The Petitioner does not 
establish the benefits to the regional or national economy that would result from his undertaking such that 
it reaches the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In 
addition, the Petitioner did not offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the areas where he would 
operate are economically depressed, he would employ a significant population of workers in these 
areas, or his endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit through 
employment levels , business activity , or tax revenue. Moreover , while the Petitioner contends that his 
proposed endeavor would assist small and medium sized companies in moving from the "embryonic 
stage " to "maturity ," it is not sufficiently clear what this means, and he has not shown the prospective 
impact of his proposed business or that it would represent a significant share of a particular field or 
market. Accordingly, the Petitioner 's propo sed endeavor does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framew ork. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the substantial merit or 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. Since this issue is dispositive, we decline 
to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner 's arguments with respect to the second and third prongs 
outlined in Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 of L-A-C- , 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4