dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Entrepreneurship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 14, 2023 In Re: 29382782 
Appeal of Nebraska 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 a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director ofthe Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established that a 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. 
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 l&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." 
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 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; 
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 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 Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 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. 
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner initially indicated that he intends to work as an 
entrepreneur establishing his U.S.-based company,~----~ He stated that 'j lis a 
new concept E-store and used car retail franchise designed to offer a portfolio focused on low-income 
owners. . . . The company will offer a unique sales experience, with good customer service support and 
a team of analysts to help target customers with finance and loans." 
The record includes the business plan for I l In section 1.3, Incorporation, the business 
plan lists the "Company Location" as 1 I, Texas" (page 6) while section 3.4 states that "[t]he 
company is incorporated in the State of Florida" (page 14). 2 The record, however, does not contain 
corroborating evidence of1 !incorporation in either Florida or Texas. The business plan 
includes industry and market analyses, information about his company and its services, financial 
forecasts and projections, marketing strategies, a discussion of the Petitioner's education and work 
experience, and a description of company personnel. Regarding future staffing, the Petitioner's 
business plan anticipates that his company will employ 14 personnel in year one, 26 in year two, 45 in 
year three, 81 in year four, and 143 in year five, but he did not elaborate on these projections or provide 
evidence supporting the need for these additional employees. In addition, while his plan offers revenue 
projections of $840,308 in phase one; $1,716,628, $3,282,723, and $6,432,685 in phase two; and 
$12,577,832 in phase three, he did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated: 
I intend to continue my career in the United States as an Entrepreneur, specifically 
focusing on my own business, I I My company is a new concept E-store 
and used car retail franchise designed to offer a portfolio focused on low-income 
earners. The customer data analysis and massive retail demand for used cars since the 
pandemic has created a once in a generational opportunity for low cost and tech-based 
auto retailers. 
The RFE response included company formation documents for I I. This company was 
established as a limited liability company inc=] Texas in 2023. The Petitioner does not explain 
the relationship between! and._______ __, or his plans for the latter company. 
2 The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the 
truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
2 
Regardless, I I was formed after the petition's filing date. 3 Eligibility must be 
demonstrated at the time of filing the benefit request. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
The Petitioner presented information about the occupations of "Chief Executives" and "Top 
Executives," immigrant entrepreneurs as drivers of economic growth in the pandemic recovery, the 
results from the "Fortune/Deloitte CEO Survey," foreign direct investment in the United States (FDI), 
the reasons why competent management is undervalued, and the economic principles of FDI. 
Additionally, the record includes articles discussing the value of entrepreneurship, ways operational 
innovation can transform a company, the role of human resources in fostering global competence, 
operations management, the effect of FDI on the U.S. economy, the reasons start-up companies fail 
and how their founders can recover, and Walmart's business challenges in Brazil. The Petitioner also 
submitted information about the occupations of General and Operations Managers, the history and 
future of operations, the effect of international companies on the U.S. economy, the benefits of 
international investment, the global talent crunch, the reasons why young managers are in a nonstop 
job hunt, and challenges faced by large companies attempting to expand internationally. The record 
therefore supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided letters of support from G-N-A-M-, U-F-A-J-, N-B-M-, W-S-O-, 
A-N-, and D-W- discussing his business capabilities and experience. The Petitioner's skills, 
knowledge, and prior work in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance 
under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
The Petitioner also submitted an "Expert Opinion Letter" from Dr. V-L-, Associate Professor of 
Marketing at T-S-U-, in support of his national interest waiver. Dr. V-L- contends that the Petitioner's 
proposed work is of national importance because the generic occupation of entrepreneur, U.S. small 
businesses in general, and our country's bilateral trade relationship with Brazil stand to contribute to 
our nation's economy. The issue here, however, is not the national importance of the field, 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. The letter from Dr. V-L- does not contain 
sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, 
to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work operating a used car dealership offers broader 
implications in his field or substantial positive economic effects for our nation that rise to the level of 
national importance. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that his undertaking "stands to sufficiently extend beyond his own endeavor in the used 
auto sales field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance." The Director also 
indicated the Petitioner had not shown that his proposed work "has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation." 
3 The Form 1-140 petition in this matter was filed in June 2021. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor has national importance because it "will 
have a significant positive economic impact, such as generating investment and U.S. tax dollars, creating 
jobs for U.S. workers, or contributing to a healthy workforce." He indicates that his undertaking stands 
"to help the U.S. stay competitive by bringing competitive services, helping develop the country, and 
producing income for the U.S. economy." The Petitioner further asserts that his proposed endeavor 
stands to affect the national economy by "offering economic convenience and agility" to "companies 
in the automotive field," "promoting growth and expansion and driving change with innovation," 
"stimulating the domestic job market," and generating "new jobs for American workers." The 
Petitioner also cites to information from public policy organizations, news media, and U.S. federal 
agencies to show the overall importance of immigrant entrepreneurship , but he has not demonstrated 
how operating a used car dealership as contemplated by his proposed endeavor rises to a level of 
national importance. 
In addition, the Petitioner mentions a "shortage of business professionals" in the United States. We 
are not persuaded by the argument that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance 
due to the shortage of professionals in his field. Here, the Petitioner has not established that his 
proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage. Moreover, 
shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the 
labor certification process. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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. 
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. While the 
Petitioner 's statements reflect his intention to provide used car dealership services to future customers, 
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. Id. at 893. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown 
that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact 
his field, the automotive retail industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate 
with national importance. 
Furthermore, 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 our nation. Specifically, he has not demonstrated that his company's future staffing levels and 
business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Texas, Florida, or the United States. 
While the Petitioner claims that his company has growth potential, he has not presented evidence 
4 
indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would 
reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In 
addition, although the Petitioner asserts that his endeavor stands to generate jobs for U.S. workers, he has 
not offered sufficient evidence that his endeavor offers Texas, Florida, or the United States a 
substantial economic benefit through employment levels, tax revenue , or business activity. 
For the aforementione d reasons , the Petitioner 's propo sed 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 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 ofL-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 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 . The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons , with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5