dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Entrepreneurship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 06, 2024 In Re: 31570982 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 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 did not establish that a waiver of the 
required job offer, and thus labor certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed a 
subsequent appeal, specifically concluding that the evidence did not satisfy the national importance 
prong under the three-prong framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions as set forth 
in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884,889 (AAO 2016). Given our resolution of this dispositive 
issue on appeal, we did not reach the remaining two prongs under the Dhanasar framework, which 
requires all three prongs must be met. 1 This matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen 
and reconsider. Upon review, we will dismiss the combined motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts to be proved and be supported by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must show that our prior 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and it was incorrect based on the 
evidence in the record of proceeding at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review 
here is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant a motion 
that meets these requirements and establishes eligibility for the benefit sought. See Matter ofCoelho, 
20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the 
outcome). Petitioners bear the burden of establishing their eligibility for the benefit sought by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
In our prior decision, incorporated herein, we determined that, although the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor to continue working as an entrepreneur and grow his multiple businesses, including 
educational and compact elevator installation ventures, has substantial merit, he did not establish that 
it is of national importance because the evidence did not show that the endeavor would have significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers, broadly impact the industries, or otherwise have broader economic 
or social implications amounting to national importance. We considered his two business plans and 
five-year projections as well as his assertions that his businesses would also benefit economically 
1 The Director did not address the underlying EB-2 classification eligibility , and we thus did not reach it on appeal. 
depressed areas and have significant societal benefits by serving vulnerable populations and producing 
educated individuals with higher employability and income. But because the record did not contain 
specific probative evidence independently substantiating these claims, we concluded that he did not 
meet his burden of establishing that his proposed businesses would have broader economic, social, or 
other implications beyond his business activities as he claimed, even if the five-year projections for 
his businesses were to materialize. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that reconsideration is warranted. On motion to reconsider, he 
reasserts that his documents submitted below-including the business plans, expert and other support 
letters, and industry reports-establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance, and 
generally states that we failed to consider "Relevant, Probative Evidence of National Importance." 
But he does not identify what relevant and evidence we specifically did not consider that constituted 
a reversible error now warranting reconsideration. Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) 
(holding that a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may seek reconsideration "by 
generally alleging error" in the prior decision). Further, other than summarily stating that we did not 
apply the correct preponderance of the evidence standard; reiterating that his documentary evidence 
established eligibility; and generally reasserting his eligibility claims, he does not specify how we 
erred in concluding that the record did not establish the claimed national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. Id. at 58 (stating that the moving party "must specify" the issues raised on appeal that were 
decided in error or overlooked in the prior decision). Our review of the record shows that we provided 
a reasoned analysis under the applicable standard of review and the Dhanasar framework based on 
the evidence in the record in concluding that he did not meet Dhanasar's national importance prong. 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not established that our last decision was based on a legal or policy 
error and it was incorrect based on the evidence before us when we dismissed the appeal. Id. The 
requirements of a motion to reconsider thus have not been met, and we will dismiss this motion. 
The Petitioner also has not demonstrated that reopening is warranted. He asserts that his endeavor­
described as multifaceted entrepreneurship in marketing, construction, education, home accessibility, 
and business development-continues to make substantial progress and rises to the level of national 
importance. As evidence of his growing businesses and their claimed increasing significance, the 
Petitioner submits on motion various new documents, comprising eight 2022 subcontractor tax forms 
for "Nonemployee Compensation" (Form 1099-NEC) for his parent company,! lthe 
company's 2021 and 2022 "Balance Sheets;" three 2022 invoices; one 2023 invoice; a partial printout 
of2023 "Payroll and W-2 Preview;" and two apartment building plans for 
and He also submits related additional documents for his elevator business 
I comprising five voidable 2022 "Commercial Proposals" for potential customers, as 
well as additional government articles and industry reports. 
At the outset, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) notifying the Petitioner of the 
evidentiary deficiency pertaining to the issue of national importance and provided a non-exhaustive 
list of type of evidence he should submit. In response to the RFE, he submitted below the same type 
of documents he now summits to us on motion, most of which ( except one invoice and some industry 
reports) predate the date of his RFE response in 2023. 2 Because he was specifically put on notice and 
given an opportunity to provide relevant evidence below and had an opportunity to supplement the 
record on appeal, we are not required to consider the similar documents he now submits on this motion. 
2 On appeal, the Petitioner submitted 100 pages of additional industry reports to us and did not submit any other evidence. 
2 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(ll) (requiring all requested evidence be submitted at one time); see also 
Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) ( declining to consider new evidence submitted 
on appeal where "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable 
opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial"). 
Even ifwe were to consider the updated documents and the Petitioner's renewed assertions on motion, 
they still do not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance as he claims. While we 
acknowledge that the proposed endeavor encompasses a multitude of business activities, he 
specifically claimed before the Director, as he did on appeal, that it has national significance primarily 
based on his educational enterprise I I and elevator business, IBased on the 
two respective business plans submitted below in 2020, he specifically claimed that I I 
revenue in its fifth year will be over $2.3 million with a net worth of over $2.5 million; I I 
net profit by year five will be over $1 million; and his businesses together will create many more jobs, 
including over 150 "indirect" jobs. We carefully considered these assertions and concluded that the 
record did not contain specific probative evidence demonstrating that his businesses would actually 
grow and have broader economic and societal impact, as he claimed. 
The Petitioner now admits on motion that I I "is still under development" and he "has plans to 
launch the company in 2024." Thus, in contrast with his 2020 projections, the record does not establish 
that he has even started this company. As for the other businesses, he resubmits duplicate copies of 
his parent company's 2021 and 2022 tax returns (Form 1120-S), along with other updated documents 
mentioned above, including company balance sheets listing its claimed total assets and profits and 
losses, 2022 tax forms for subcontractors, four invoices, and five voidable job proposals for potential 
clients, all of which relate to his remodeling and elevator installation projects. Based on these 
documents, he generally claims that his parent company in 2022 had $200,999 in total assets and a net 
income of $309,054, indicating growth and national importance. However, the stated 2022 figures for 
his parent company, even if true, falls significantly below even I I initial business 
projections, which indicated that by year three (2022), it would have about $900,000 in net revenue 
(at worst $500,000). The record also does not contain any new or otherwise probative evidence 
independently corroborating the lower 2022 figures he now claims for his company's revenue. The 
motion documents thus do not show the claimed substantial positive economic impact of his proposed 
endeavor through the remaining business ventures. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner nonetheless also asserts that his company continues to grow, it has even indirectly 
created 613 jobs, and it now has an annual revenue of about $2.5 million with 22 employees and 138 
subcontractors. But, again, the record still does not contain any objective evidence independently 
corroborating these assertions. Even if the above figures were accurate, as the Director determined, 
they do not by themselves establish the Petitioner's businesses would significantly affect the economy. 
Although he also asserts that he now has new plans to build 82 apartments in Florida, the only 
document he submits for this claim, a 14-page building plan, does not include detailed financial 
information and projections or indicate how he will achieve his construction goals. The record, 
including the new evidence on motion, does not otherwise show that he has taken any concrete steps 
for the new apartment projects, such as securing permits, making purchases, and acquiring loans, 
business contracts, and investments. Therefore, the assertions that his company will have significant 
economic impact based on increasing revenue and job numbers remain unsubstantiated. 
3 
Although he also reiterates that his businesses continue to benefit economically depressed areas and 
have societal benefits by helping vulnerable individuals, he does not identify any evidence in the 
record or submit any new documents specifically related to these assertions. He also claims that his 
company's headquarters is near two of the poorest cities in Florida, and the close proximity to these 
cities shows his company helps them. But the record contains no corroborating evidence that his 
company has ever operated or provided employment in any economically depressed areas and will do 
so in the future, and the record lacks evidence that his endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
Publicly available website for the Petitioner's company, www .com, also does not 
indicate his company benefits economically depressed areas. Lastly, he reiterates the significance of 
the support letters and the industry reports submitted below and on motion but they do not contain or 
support any new facts or assertions for purposes of a motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). These 
documents also generally describe significance a business field or industry and thus do not specifically 
relate to Dhanasar's national importance prong, which focuses on potential prospective impact of the 
proposed endeavor, rather than the person's credentials, experience, or the importance of the industry. 
Dhanasar at 889. The record also still does not contain any specific probative evidence that his 
claimed business models or processes would be adopted by the industry or have broader impact beyond 
his company. Similarly, his new evidence and assertions on motion do not address our prior finding 
that he did not otherwise establish that his endeavor has broader implications within a specific field or 
industry, beyond his businesses and clients such that the proposed endeavor may indicate national 
importance. Id. at 890. Considering the foregoing, the Petitioner's motion does not overcome the 
ground on which we dismissed his appeal or otherwise show reopening is warranted as the updated 
documents and assertions do not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has national importance. Id. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that reopening or reconsideration of our prior decision 
is warranted. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), (3). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4