dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Entrepreneurship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 3, 2024 In Re: 29345238 
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 she 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 her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner indicated that she planned "to work as a CEO/ 
entrepreneur in the United States. I will do this by developing and expanding my own registered and filed 
company in the nation, I I My company will be based out of the state of Colorado." She 
further explained that she intends "to establish a spa center to provide both spa and beauty services to 
Americans. The spa will mix eastern elements (herbal treatment) and western relaxation methods." 
In addition to company formation documents, the Petitioner submitted her business plan for I ID a "Spa Relaxing Centre." This business plan includes industry and market analyses, information 
about her company and its services, financial forecasts and projections, marketing strategies, a 
discussion of the Petitioner's work experience, and a description of company personnel. Regarding 
future full-time staffing, the Petitioner's business plan anticipates that her company will employ 9 
personnel in year one, 10 in year two, 19 in year three, 20 in year four, and 29 in year five, but she did 
not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional 
employees. Furthermore, while her plan offers revenue projections of $1,483,200 in year one, 
$1,631,520 in year two, $2,447,280 in year three, $2,814,372 in year four, and $4,221,558 in year five, 
she did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated. 
The record includes information about immigrant entrepreneurs as drivers of economic growth in the 
pandemic recovery, the Biden Administration's revival of the international entrepreneur rule, the 
Biden Administration's "Executive Order on Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and 
Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans," and the reasons the United States 
is losing immigrant entrepreneurs to other nations. Additionally, the Petitioner provided articles 
discussing immigrants and entrepreneurship, the share of foreign-born health care practitioners and 
scientists in the United States, immigrant entrepreneurs as founders of Fortune 500 companies, and 
the reasons immigrants are more likely to become entrepreneurs. She also submitted information 
about chief executives, management consulting in the United States, the role of entrepreneurship in 
U.S. job creation and economic dynamism, and the reasons entrepreneurs will be critical to the Biden 
recovery plan. Here, the Director concluded that the submitted documentation demonstrates the 
proposed endeavor's substantial merit. In determining national importance, however, the relevant 
question is not the value of immigrant entrepreneurship or the Petitioner's general occupation; instead, 
we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner must still establish the potential prospective impact of her specific 
proposed endeavor. 
2 
The Petitioner also provided letters of support from B-E, L-P-, M-B-, F-I-, B-G-, K-T-, M-B-, S-O-, 
T-B-, S-C-, and K-D- discussing her business capabilities and experience. The Petitioner's education, 
skills, knowledge, and prior work in her 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 she proposes to undertake has national importance 
under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
The Petitioner also submitted an "Expert Opinion Letter" from H-Q-, a professor atl~------~ 
in support of her national interest waiver. H-Q- contended that the Petitioner's proposed work is of 
national importance because of the number of direct and indirect jobs her company stands to create. 
The letter from H-Q-, however, does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the 
record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work 
as a spa services company operator offers broader implications in her industry, enhancements to U.S. 
societal welfare, 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 her proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that her undertaking stands to have broader implications in her industry, significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers, or other substantial positive economic effects. 
In her appeal brief, the Petitioner argues that she "will be addressing an industry shortage, which cannot 
be addressed by the U.S. workers as demand exceeds supply." We are not persuaded by the argument 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of workers in her 
field. Here, the Petitioner has not established that her 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 addition, the Petitioner asserts that she "has over fifteen (15) years of progressive experience in the 
business field" in areas such as "accounting, financial analysis and sales" as well as "wholesale, retail, 
and hospitality business." She also points to her Master ofBusiness Administration degree and bachelor's 
degree. As discussed, the Petitioner's education, skills, and knowledge in her field 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 she proposes to undertake 
has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
The Petitioner also contends that '1 Iwill make a stand and impact, generating jobs for U.S. 
workers in ... underutilized areas, improving the wages and working conditions for the U.S. workers, 
and helping the local community bring investments to the region." The Petitioner, however, has not 
provided evidence demonstrating that her proposed business activities would operate on such a scale as 
to rise to a level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance 
or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims. Furthermore, 
while any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact the economy, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated how the potential economic activity of her specific endeavor stands to generate 
substantial positive economic effects in the region where her company operates or in other parts of the 
United States. 
3 
Additionally, the Petitioner claims that her proposed endeavor stands to affect the national economy 
by "offering economic convenience and agility" to "small and medium-sized U.S. companies," 
"promoting growth and expansion and driv[ing] change with innovation," " stimulating the domestic 
job market," and generating "new jobs for American workers." She also cites to information from 
public policy organizations, news media, and U.S. federal agencies to show the overall value of 
immigrant entrepreneurship, but she has not demonstrated how operating a spa services company as 
contemplated by her proposed endeavor rises to a level of national importance. 
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 her work. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide spa and beauty services to her company 's 
clients, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of her 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 her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its clientele 
to impact her field, the spa industry, the U.S. economy, or U.S. societal welfare more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. Specifically, she has not demonstrated that her company's future staffing levels and 
business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Colorado or the United States. 
While the Petitioner claims that her company has growth potential, she has not presented evidence 
indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her undertaking would 
reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In 
addition, although the Petitioner asserts that her endeavor stands to generate "employment opportunities 
for U.S. workers," she has not offered sufficient evidence that her endeavor offers Colorado or the 
United States a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, tax revenue, or business 
activity. 
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 her 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 dis positive 
4 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding 
her 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 she has not established she 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