dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Entrepreneurship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 25, 2025 In Re: 35649848 
Appeal of Texas 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 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 although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
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 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 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. 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. 
We set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the 
job offer, and thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner 
demonstrates that (1) the noncitizen 's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that on 
1 See 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) . 
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 
the noncitizen 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, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification 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. Each of the factors 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as an entrepreneur and chief executive officer. The 
Director found that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification. 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. While we do not discuss every 
piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit and that he is well-positioned to advance it. The Director determined, however, that the 
Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor's national importance, and that, on balance, it would 
benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the 
Director erroneously denied the petition. The Petitioner further contends that the Director failed to 
apply the proper standard of proof and instead imposed a novel standard. 
The Petitioner states that he intends to operate his company, ________ which aims to 
deliver essential construction and architectural solutions to various businesses and public projects, 
including the production and sale of precast concrete and outdoor flooring materials. The record includes 
2 
a business plan, expert opinion letter, recommendation letters, and industry reports and articles on various 
topics, such as business and entrepreneurship. 
The Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor will "create jobs for U.S. workers in the 
manufacturing and installing concrete solutions" industry. In determining whether the proposed 
endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. The relevant question is 
not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we 
focus on "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, although the Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor will "enhance 
the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the U.S., particularly the construction sector," the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that his proposed endeavor will bring substantial economic benefit that would rise to the 
level of national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor will generate 13 direct jobs within his company and 23 
indirect jobs. He further claims, through his business plan, that his company will achieve total revenue 
of $5,000,000 by 2024. However, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these 
projections, or adequately explain how these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized. The 
Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the record does not show that the benefits 
to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
890. 
The Petitioner argues that his endeavor aligns directly with national priorities, such as advanced 
manufacturing and infrastructure resilience, by developing innovative precast concrete solutions 
designed to withstand harsh weather conditions. As previously mentioned, in determining national 
importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 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. 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, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his undertaking has implications beyond the 
companies and clients he elects to work with to impact the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising to the 
level of national importance. 
The Petitioner claims that he will establish his propoosed endeavor within a Small Business 
Administration (SBA) designated HUBZone in Florida. The Petitioner, however, 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 the United States. We are also 
not persuaded by the Petitioner's intention to operate his proposed endeavor within a HUB Zone since 
the Petitioner has not adequately established what parameters the SBA considers when it establishes 
3 
HUBZones. We therefore cannot evaluate whether these SBA-identified underutilized business zones 
are akin to the types of economically depressed areas within which creating employment could be a 
potential positive economic effect. 2 More importantly, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient 
information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises 
to the level of national importance. 
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 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 The HUBZone program's goal is to promote business growth in underutilized business zones by awarding 3% of federal 
contract dollars to HUBZone-certified companies. That certification makes a business eligible to compete for certain 
federal contracts in the "set-aside" category. There are several required qualifications to participate in the program, but 
the most dispositive one for our analysis today is that the business seeking to participate in the HUBZone program must 
be at least 51 % owned by U.S. citizens, a community development corporation, an agricultural cooperative, an Alaska 
Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. While it is unknown and the record is silent as to 
whether any federal programs exist in the "set-aside" category for endeavors like the one the Petitioner proposes, it appears 
as though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be wholly owned and controlled by the Petitioner and that the 
Petitioner is not a U.S. citizen, a community development corporation, an agricultural cooperative, an Alaska Native 
corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. We therefore question whether the Petitioner would even 
be eligible to participate in the HUBZone program. 
4