dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Entrepreneurship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19615915 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 4, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks second preference 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 of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that he is eligible for a national 
interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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. 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. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
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 after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen's 
proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 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 that 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 he or she 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; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen's 
qualifications 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. In each case, the factor(s) 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. 2 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record indicates 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. 
Specifically, we conclude that the Petitioner has submitted insufficient and inconsistent evidence 
regarding the substantive nature of his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner indicated in his initial filing that he intends "to advance [his] career as an Entrepreneur, 
developing international business activities by promoting cross-border commercial trade transactions in 
various industries, which will enhance substantiall the United States econom " He stated that he 
currently works as the President of as well 
as in the capacity of Executive Director and Partner of _______________ both 
of which are engaged in manufacturing and distribution of products for the Brazilian and American 
markets. He claimed that in these position, he "ensure[ s] the protection and maintenance of the 
company's assets, keeping in control the evolution of the business operations and businesses," and 
indicated that his actions are "integral to the continued success of the businesses." The Petitioner stated 
that he intends to continue working as an entrepreneur in the United States by "formulating policies 
managing operations, and strategically planning the use of materials and human resources" for U.S. 
companies. He further stated that he intends to "continue using [his] vast expertise and knowledge in 
many areas to provide expert managerial and operational advice to U.S. companies," and that his 
"experience working in global industries of importance will allow [him] to work with U.S. companies 
looking to capitalize in multiple sectors, especially including those doing business or planning on 
expanding their business internationally, with the greatest of ease." 
In his professional plan, the Petitioner clarified that he intends "to continue working as an entrepreneur, 
developing new enterprises for the North American market and generating more direct and indirect jobs 
through [his] endeavors" and will "continue designing innovative strategies, disrupting industry practices, 
and maintaining good working relationships with investors, identifying any opportunities for cross-border 
projects through extensive research and development." He further claimed that his specific endeavor will 
potentially impact the U.S. in the following ways: 
• Designing, implementing, and managing all activities in the commercial, strategic 
planning, business, and financial areas of a business; 
• Consulting on best industry practices, which prioritize market-needs, within a 
wide range of industries; 
• Job creation, which will increase the national GDP; 
• Networking with industry peers, competitors and prospective clients to 
continuously develop new business opportunities; 
• Developing cross-border projects between the U.S. and Latin America, and other 
global markets. 
The Petitioner also submitted letters of support discussing his business accomplishments. __ 
I I Corporate Executive Chief for states that he entered into a 
3 
business partnership with the Petitioner in 2016 in order to export products from his company, I I I to the United States. I I states that the Petitioner "was instrumental to the development of 
the business plan and the detailed feasibility evaluation for the development of this project," and further 
states that the Petitioner "played a pivotal role presenting the necessary data" which resulted in an 
exclusive contract for the American market. Based on this successJ I claims that he is currently 
working on another project with the Petitioner to introduce! 
cleaning products to the U.S. market. I lconcludes by stating that the Petitioner "demonstrates 
a high level of knowledge in the management of companies and business" and notes that his 25 years of 
experience in the industry will enable him to succeed. 
Financial Advisor forl I Brazil's first financial planning boutique, 
indicates that he and the Petitioner developed several investment strategies together, which "generated 
meaningful results in the financial management ofresources." He further states that the Petitioner was 
"responsible for the implementation of exchange protection controls that proved effective in the face of 
significant changes in the exchange rate, thus increasing margins and revenues." He concludes that the 
Petitioner "is a professional of great competence" and that "the United States will greatly benefit from his 
unparalleled expertise." 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) asking the Petitioner to provide further information 
and evidence regarding his proposed endeavor and its national importance. In response, the Petitioner 
provided a revised professional plan and statement, noting that subsequent to the filing of the petition, 
he purchased all outstanding shares of I land is currently the sole owner of the 
company, which distributes biodegradable cleaning products for companies and individuals. He stated 
as follows: 
Through my current company in the U.S., I 
will benefit U.S. businesses and individuals in the following way: 
• Provide Earth Friendly, Biodegradable cleaning products for companies and 
individuals 
• Offer the market a one-stop solution for Natural Biodegradable ___ 
Products, Commercial and Residential Cleaning Services, Surfaces Treatment, 
and Virus Disinfection 
• Fill a vital role in the market to address growing demand/or Natural Cleaning 
Products free of harmfitl chemicals, and concern over the potential effects on 
Global Warming, with a growing worry over how to safely disinfect against 
diseases, such as the novel Coronavirus 
• Generate tax revenue and create jobs for the US. 
Although parts of his revised statement repeat his earlier assertions, he noted that "disinfection of 
Retail Stores, Offices, and Houses has become urgent and necessary" due to the COVID-19 pandemic 
and that his company's provision of environmentally friendly cleaning products in this volatile time 
will prove valuable to U.S. consumers. In this new statement, he omitted mention of seeking direct 
employment with U.S. companies as an entrepreneur and business developer/advisor, and instead 
stated that he will be an entrepreneur and president/owner of his own company. 
4 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that while the Petitioner's proposed work 
has substantial merit, he had not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 3 The 
Director acknowledged that although the Petitioner demonstrated his intent to grow and develop his 
enterprise in the United States to generate revenue and create jobs, he did not establish that his 
proposed endeavor had national importance. The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not shown 
that his undertaking "will have potential prospective impact," noting that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that his proposed endeavor stands to have broader implications, or national or global 
implications, within a particular field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he has demonstrated the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor under the preponderance of evidence standard and that the Director's decision was in error 
because it imposed a "stricter standard of proof." With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, 
a petitioner must establish that he meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In other 
words, a petitioner must show that what he claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To 
determine whether a petitioner has met his burden under the preponderance standard, we consider not 
only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the 
evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, the Director 
analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed his evidence to evaluate whether he had 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
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. 
Here, the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is unclear. The information he provided in 
response to the Director's RFE did not clarify or provide more specificity to his initially described 
proposed endeavor of working as an entrepreneur and business developer/advisor who would 
contribute directly to the U.S. economy by "helping U.S. businesses improve their strategies and 
practices" by providing strategic planning services, developing business plans, and conducting 
financial feasibility studies. Rather, it changed the focus of his work and the nature of his proposed 
endeavor altogether. The Petitioner's initial filing contained little to no information on his proposed 
3 The record contains information about immigrants' contribution to the U.S. economy, immigrant entrepreneurs as 
business creators, and the value of entrepreneurs to our country's economy. In addition, the Petitioner provided articles 
discussing immigrant entrepreneurs' economic contributions, entrepreneurs' involvement in promoting a more inclusive 
economy, the entrepreneurial legacy of immigrants and their children, and information about entrepreneurs' role in job 
creation and innovation, the economic contribution of immigrant-launched businesses, and immigrant tax contributions 
and spending power. Although the exact nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is unclear, the record shows that the 
Petitioner's proposed work has substantial merit, and we agree with the Director's determination on this issue. 
5 
endeavor but simply included a statement that his occupation is that of an entrepreneur and that he 
intended to offer his services to U.S. companies. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a revised professional plan emphasizing that his goal 
was to "find a vital role in the market to address growing demand for Natural Cleaning Products" and 
offer a "one-stop" solution to clients seeking natural, biodegradable cleaning products. The record 
shows that the Petitioner did not obtain his ownership interest inl I until January 2020, 
over one year after he filed the petition. Although he highlighted the experience he gained in the role 
of president fotj I, his initial description of the proposed endeavor did not include any 
plans to purchase the company, and the Petitioner does not explain how he would be able to devote 
sufficient attention both to running his own company and to providing business consulting services to 
one or multiple U.S. companies, as originally asserted. The Petitioner must meet eligibility 
requirements at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). The Petitioner's purchase of a 
new company after the filing date cannot retroactively establish eligibility, and a petitioner may not 
make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make an apparently 
deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 
(Comm'r 1998); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971), which 
requires that beneficiaries seeking employment-based immigrant classification must possess the 
necessary qualifications as of the filing date of the visa petition. 
The Petitioner's focus on the distribution of biodegradable cleaning products presented in the RFE 
substantively differs from his initial plan to provide consulting services to U.S. employers as an 
entrepreneur/business advisor. The business plan for I provides information on 
market segmentation for various cleaning products and the main industries, as commercial and 
industrial, that will benefit from the company's eco-friendly products, and includes information on 
external competitors such as ABM Industries, Coverall Health Based Cleaning System, Jan-Pro 
Franchising, Jani-King International. The plan indicates that in the first five years of operations, the 
business intends to generate 112 jobs for U.S. workers (including janitors, cleaners, maids, 
housekeeping cleaners, sales representatives, and supervisory positions) across four states (Florida, 
California, Texas, and Georgia), and claims the business will ultimately have a total of four business 
units. The business plan further asserts that the company will generate revenues of approximately 
$13.5 million during that period through the distribution of cleaning products and the provision of 
cleaning services, but there is no mention of the provision of business consultation or advisory services 
as originally claimed. We therefore conclude the RFE response presented a new set of facts regarding 
the proposed endeavor, which is material to eligibility for a national interest waiver. See Matter of 
Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978); see also Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889-90. Again, the Petitioner's purchase of a new company and his revised plan to focus his endeavor 
on the import and distribution of biodegradable cleaning products and services presented after the 
filing date cannot retroactively establish eligibility. We reiterate that a petitioner may not make 
material changes to a petition that has already been filed to make an apparently deficient petition 
conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izwnmi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175; see also Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that he will "continue working in the United States as an 
Entrepreneur in the high-growth business industry of eco-friendly cleaning supplies and services, 
serving the commercial and residential sectors, which clearly demonstrates his commitment and ability 
6 
to drive his proposed endeavor in the United States." However, he does not sufficiently explain how 
his revised plan has national importance, rather than primarily benefiting his own company and its 
clients. Moreover, although he reasserts on appeal that his endeavor will contribute to tax revenue, 
prioritize the domestic job market, and ultimately help increase monetary flow on national and regional 
levels, his revised professional statement indicated that his ultimate goal is to provide the U.S. market 
a one-stop solution for obtaining biodegradable cleaning products. The Petitioner does not adequately 
distinguish this alternate endeavor on appeal from his prior assertions about the overall impact of 
entrepreneurship and the impact his consulting and advisory services would have on the U.S. economy. 
Accordingly, the specific nature of his proposed endeavor remains unclear. In Dhanasar, we held that 
a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake ." See 
Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We conclude that his initial filing and the RFE response contained 
differing jobs and insufficiently detailed statements concerning his proposed future work. 
Furthermore, his appeal does not address the fact that his new role as a company owner began after 
the initial filing of the petition. If significant, material changes are made to the initial request for 
approval, a petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition that is not 
supported by the facts in the record. 
Therefore, since we are unable to specifically identify the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, we are 
likewise unable to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national 
importance requirement. Generally, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective 
impact" of a petitioner's work. Here, while the Petitioner 's initial statements reflect his intention to 
provide business consulting and advisory services to U.S. companies, and revised statements indicate 
that he intends to import and distribute biodegradable cleaning products and services for the benefit 
of U.S. consumers, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of either endeavor rises to the level of national importance . Moreover, the 
Petitioner does not show through supporting documentation how providing biodegradable cleaning 
products and related services stands to sufficiently extend beyond his own company to impact the 
industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with 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 record does not show that either of the Petitioner's proposed endeavors stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond his company and its future clientele, or companies to whom he may lend 
his expertise, to impact the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. The Petitioner claims on appeal that his proposed endeavor will "have immense ripple 
effects" upon key commercial activities in the United States - namely, addressing the need for 
individuals and business to have necessary products to properly disinfect businesses and residential 
properties given the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic . As previously noted, he 
provided no specific information or data relevant to economic effects potentially resulting from 
general entrepreneurship and business consulting activities offered to U.S. companies . Moreover , he 
has not shown that his company's future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide 
substantial economic benefits in Florida, California, Texas, Georgia, or the United States. The 
7 
business plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections , nor does it 
adequately explain how these projections will be realized. While the sales forecast for 
I !indicates that the Petitioner's company has growth potential, it does not demonstrate 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 company will hire U.S. employees and that his endeavor will create jobs for 
various individuals in the cleaning/janitorial field, he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area 
where his company operates is economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population 
of workers in that area, or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial 
economic benefit through employment levels or business activity .4 According ly, the Petitioner 's 
proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information regarding his proposed endeavor, we 
cannot conclude that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. The Petitioner, 
therefore, has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility 
under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
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 The Petitioner indicated that businesses and homeowners in and FIorida make up the 
primary market for his company 's services, and that the company facilities are located inl J Florida. 
8