dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Entrepreneurship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: Jul. 24, 2024 In Re: 31651012 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner' seeks second preference immigrant classification (EB-2) as an advanced degree 
professional. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2) 
(2022). She indicates that she intends to come to the United States "to serve as an 
Entrepreneur/Investor at ___________ a U.S.-based business that the Petitioner 
had established. She 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. 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 record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3 (2023). 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa'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 immigrant 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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. 
1 The Petitioner submitted a Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, in 
December 2023 and January 2024. As explained in our May 2024 letter to the Petitioner and the attorney listed on the 
Form G-28, we are considering the Petitioner as self-represented because the Form G-28 lacks a valid signature and, to 
date, the Petitioner has not filed a properly executed Form G-28. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest 
waiver petitions. Matter ofDhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 2 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 the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-91. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner "qualifies for the classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree." Notwithstanding this finding, the Director concluded that 
she did not establish a waiver of the required job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. Specifically, the Director explained in the decision that "the record does not 
demonstrate the national importance of the [Petitioner's] proposed endeavor" or "on balance, [the 
proposed endeavor] would be beneficial to the United States." 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's finding, concluding that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor does not satisfy the national importance element under the first prong of the Matter of 
Dhanasar framework. If the Petitioner does not meet the first prong, the record is dispositive in 
finding that she is ineligible for the national interest waiver, and we need not address the second and 
third prongs under the Matter ofDhanasar framework. 
As explained in the Director's decision, the first prong - substantial merit and national importance -
focuses on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake in the United States. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We noted in Matter ofDhanasar 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. 
In a July 2022 statement, the Petitioner stated that she intends to be "an Entrepreneur/Investor" in the 
United States, serving as the chief executive officer (CEO) of I I She 
claimed that will operate in the syringes and injection needle 
manufacturing industry, providing various types of syringes and injection needles for wholesale, 
logistics and fulfillment services, and account management and broker outsourcing services. She 
2 See Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F. 3d 868, 870-76 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national 
interest waiver to be discretionary in nature); 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 is discretionary in nature). 
2 
further alleged that this business will "generat[ e] 53 direct jobs for U.S. workers," paying $5.17 million 
in wages in the first five years of its operations. A May 2022 business plan reveals that the Petitioner 
and her spouse jointl owns The business plan states that the business 
is headquartered in __ Florida,3 and intends to establish a second location inl ITexas, 
during its third year of operations, as well as a third location inl INorth Carolina, during its 
fifth year of operations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director did not "give due regard" to her evidence, 
including her resume, business plan, documents relating to her 
education and experience, letters of recommendation, as well as reports and articles concerning 
"supply chain management and injection needle manufacturing" and "the U.S. business and 
manufacturing sector." Evidence relating to the Petitioner's educational achievements and 
professional experience is relevant to the second prong of the Matter of Dhanasar framework; 
specifically, whether she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Id., 26 I&N Dec. 
at 890. 
The recommendation letters in the record praise the Petitioner's character and ability, but they fail to 
establish, or discuss, the national importance of her proposed endeavor, the first prong of the Matter 
of Dhanasar framework. For example, the technical director of a Brazilian health product 
manufacturer stated in his letter that the Petitioner "possesses exceptional skills" and that she "behaved 
professionally, integrated with dignity and honesty" when working with his company. The chief 
operating officer of a Texas business indicated that the Petitioner "has a track record of being 
competent in her line of work" and "will provide a much-needed service to [the U.S.]." The 
commercial and operations director of a Brazilian fuel company provided that the Petitioner has a 
"track record of successes [that] align with her unique skills and methods." Other recommendation 
letters verify the Petitioner's professional experience. As the Director explained in the decision, under 
the second prong of the Matter of Dhanasar framework, USCIS considers factors including "the 
[Petitioner's] education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; ... any 
progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, 
investors or other relevant entities or individuals." At issue, however, is that the evidence fails to 
demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the first prong of the 
Matter ofDhanasar framework. Id., 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
While the Petitioner claims that she has satisfied the national importance element because her proposed 
endeavor will have "a substantial positive economic effect," the record does not support this 
contention. According to pages 54 through 58 of business plan, the 
business intends to create "53 Full-Time and Part-Time Job Employees and Contractors" within the 
first five years of its operations, which purportedly will lead to the creation of "a total of 106 indirect 
jobs." In a March 2022 letter, a professor at I II Istated that "one direct job created by [the business] would contribute to the creation of other 
jobs [indirect jobs]." While the business plan includes charts that list various anticipated positions -
including "Stockers and Order Fillers," "Sales Representatives," "Packaging and Filling Machine 
3 Information listed on the Florida Division of Corporations' website confirms that the Petitioner's business is in 
Florida. 
3 
Operators and Tenders," "Administrative Assistants," and "Accountants and Auditors" - the record 
does not support this level of claimed direct employment. 
To the extent that the purported number of direct jobs is based on ____________ 
projected revenue or its level of sales, the record has not sufficiently corroborated those figures. For 
example, page 69 of the business plan lists the business's projected revenue, cost, net profit, and net 
income, noting that the figures "were based on the IBIS world report" and that the "information 
obtained by quotes and estimates done in the market was the baseline" for these figures. The 
Petitioner, however, has not explained how the business's projected revenue, cost, net profit, and net 
income figures were derived from information provided in the IBIS World December 2021 Industry 
Report or other industry-based materials in the record. In other words, while the IBIS report and other 
industry-based materials discuss the syringes and injection needle manufacturing industry, the 
Petitioner has not explained how the generalized information in these documents was then used to 
predict her business's operations, including business revenue, cost, net profit, and net income figures. 
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that ___________ has the potential to create 
53 direct jobs and 106 indirect jobs in Florida, Texas, and North Carolina, and that it has the potential 
to have an annual revenue between $4.4 million and $15.5 million, as claimed in the business plan, 
the Petitioner has not established the business's "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or [it] 
has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." 
Specifically, page 38 of the IBIS report provides that between 2022 and 2025 the anticipated annual 
employment in the industry is between approximately 9,500 and l 0,600 units, and the anticipated 
annual revenue in the industry is between approximately $3.6 billion and $4.1 billion. This 
information, which reveals the industry's substantial size, does not support the Petitioner's claim that 
____________ operations, including its potential employment and economic 
effects, will likely have "national or even global implications within [the] particular field." See Matter 
ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner has offered other evidence, such as recommendation letters, to support her petition. 
The recommendation letters similarly do not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor. According to the March 2022 letter from a professor at the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor is "to create, manage, and grow an international business consulting 
firm in the U.S.," which will "help U.S. companies seize business development and investment 
opportunities in Brazil" and "help attract investments from Brazil into the United States." This 
description is inconsistent with the proposed endeavor stated in the Petitioner's statement and the May 
2022 business plan. The Petitioner and the business plan claim that her proposed endeavor involves 
serving as the CEO for ___________ a U.S.-based company that will be in the 
syringes and injection needle manufacturing industry. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 
(BIA 1988) (stating that "[i]t is incumbent upon [the petitioner] to resolve the inconsistencies by 
independent objective evidence" and that "[a]ttempts to explain or reconcile the conflicting accounts, 
absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice"). 
Additionally, we note that the documentation in the record relating to job creation discusses positions 
in the syringes and injection needle manufacturing industry, not positions in the international business 
consulting industry. 
4 
Regardless, even if we accept that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is in both the syringes and 
injection needle manufacturing industry and the international business consulting industry, merely 
operating in one or two important industries is insufficient to establish that her proposed endeavor has 
national importance. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The evidence, including 
documents on potential employment creation and economic impacts, which we have discussed above, 
does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor improves or advances any field, or that its 
potential impacts have "implications within [a] particular field" that reach the level of national 
importance. As noted, the relevant question is not the importance of a particular field in which the 
individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In this case, for the reasons we have discussed, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated the requisite national importance of her proposed endeavor. 
Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of the Matter of Dhanasar 
framework, and she has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As 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 Matter of Dhanasar framework. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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 requisite first prong of the Matter ofDhanasar analytical framework, 
we find that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5