dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Entrepreneurship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 4, 2024 InRe : 31034574 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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. § 1 l 53(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, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that a discretionary 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. 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 l&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. Because 
this classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate 
showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 
1 See also 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 to be 
thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner demonstrates 
that (1) the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the 
noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that on balance it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor the 
noncitizen 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, in light of the nature of the 
noncitizen's qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen 
to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that 
other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's 
contributions; and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent 
to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, 
indicate that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job 
offer and thus of a labor certification. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a chief executive officer (CEO) and an 
entrepreneur. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the 
Petitioner failed to establish a discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Petitioner states, "the [Director] determined that the [Petitioner] does qualify for the requested 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree." The Director's decision, 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
however, did not offer an analysis on the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional nor as an individual of exceptional ability. 
The resolution of the issues pertaining to the Petitioner's eligibility for a waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus of a labor certification, under the Dhanasar analytical framework are dispositive 
of this appeal. For that reason, we will reserve consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility for the 
requested EB-2 category. 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 I&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). 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and that he is 
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Director determined, however, that the 
Petitioner did not establish 
the proposed endeavor is of national importance, and that, on balance, it 
would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement. In particular, the Director found 
that the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor has broader implications, has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers, and that it would broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or 
artistic enrichment. Furthermore, the Director decided that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient 
evidence to confirm whether his proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erroneously applied the relevant law. The 
Petitioner further argues that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof and instead 
imposed a stricter standard. The Petitioner also highlights the evidence submitted in support of the 
petition and in response to the Director's notice of intent to deny and claims that the Director failed to 
give "due regard" to the submitted evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence 
individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
The record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to operate his business, _____ 
that provides construction and electrical equipment wholesaling services in Massachusetts. He claims 
his company will offer services for household electrical installations, repairs, house automation, and 
internet of things appliance integration. 
As previously noted, the first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor the noncitizen 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. 
The Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor is of national importance as he will contribute to 
maintaining the competitiveness of the United States by introducing competitive services, fostering 
national development, and generating income for the U.S. economy. The Petitioner submits a resume, 
3 
business plan, and recommendation letters to emphasize his education and extensive experience in 
business development and management. In addition, the record includes industry reports and articles 
that highlight the importance of the business development professionals. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. While 
the Petitioner claims his endeavor is nationally important, the Petitioner 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. Id. at 893. Here, the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to 
show that the Petitioner's specific proposed to work as a CEO and entrepreneur offers broader 
implications in his field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive economic 
effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance. 
Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the evidence he submits on appeal, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
his clients and companies he elects to work with to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale 
indicative of national importance. 
The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself: not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must 
establish that his specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. The 
Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States. 
Specifically, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his specific endeavor stands to provide 
substantial economic benefits in the United States. While the Petitioner claims that by year five his 
company will offer 13 direct and 22 indirect jobs and gamer total revenue of $5,000,000, the record does 
not support the Petitioner's general assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility 
of those assertions. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies on his education and professional experience and various industry 
reports to establish why his CEO/entrepreneur endeavor is of national importance. He highlights his 
28 years of professional experience and knowledge in business administration, strategic planning, and 
business development to underscore the significance of his proposed endeavor. Although an 
individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, they are 
misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong. The Petitioner's claimed extensive experiences 
are material to Dhanasar 's second prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a 
proposed endeavor-but they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, 
prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-
91. 
Moreover, the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor will have broader implications 
beyond benefitting the Petitioner's customers. As previously mentioned, 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." Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how he will positively 
4 
impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move the U.S. economy on a broad 
scale rising to the level of national importance. Without evidence projecting U.S. economic impact or 
job creation attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, it is insufficient to assert that the 
benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the proposed endeavor would rise to 
the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner argues that his proposed endeavor is an area of national importance because of the 
"ripple effects it generates upon significant national, social, and governmental matters, namely 
education." The Petitioner must nonetheless demonstrate that his specific proposed endeavor-which 
consists of his work as a CEO and entrepreneur in the business field-holds national importance, not 
that the national initiatives and interests, industries, or fields do. He has not done so. 
It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or that it will create a broad impact 
without providing evidence to corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 
2010). 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the 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 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and also hereby reserve the appellate arguments 
regarding his eligibility under 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 I&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 Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5