dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Entrepreneurship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 27, 2024 In Re: 33358326 
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 either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 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 Petitioner's Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Workers, concluding that the record did not establish that Petitioner was a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree, or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, 
or business. The Director further concluded that the record did not establish he merited a national 
interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree of expertise and will 
substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United 
States. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 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, 3 grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined, in part, that the Petitioner had not established he was a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree to establish underlying eligibility for EB-2 classification. In 
particular, the Director determined that evidence submitted by the Petitioner to establish he possessed 
a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive experience 
was accompanied by incomplete certifications of translation and therefore was unacceptable to 
establish this criterion. Upon review, we conclude that the certificates of translation for the 
Petitioner's evidence are acceptable and that he possesses the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree 
in business administration and has the requisite years of experience in operating various businesses in 
Brazil.4 Accordingly, the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 immigrant classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advance degree. While the Director also determined that the Petitioner was 
not an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, because we conclude that the 
Petitioner is an advanced degree professional, we need not reach the question of whether he is an 
individual of exceptional ability. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
3 See Brasil v. Sec'y of DHS, 28 F.4th 1189, 1194 (11th Cir. 2022) (concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a 
national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
4 The form instructions for the Form 1-140 at the time the Petitioner submitted his petition required that for any translation 
the "translator must sign a certification that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that he or she 
is competent to translate from the foreign language into English." The Director concluded that the translator certifications 
for the Petitioner's academic records and employment verification letters did not state that the translations were 
"complete." Our review of the record, however, shows that the translator certifications for these documents included 
language stating that the translations were "true, accurate, and complete." 
2 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 
they reach"). 
The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a discretionary national 
interest waiver because he did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance; that 
he was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 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, as 
required under the Dhanasar analytical framework described above. 
On appeal, the Petitioner initially claims that the Director erroneously applied the law and improperly 
"imposed novel substantive and evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations." 
However, the Petitioner does not specify what these novel requirements are, nor identify a specific 
error in the Director's application of the law. The Petitioner also makes general assertions that the 
Director did not apply the proper standard of proof and did not give due regard to the evidence in the 
record. However, the Petitioner does not support these assertions with specificity as to the record or 
to the Director's conclusions, and our review indicates that the Director properly considered the 
relevant evidence under the applicable preponderance of the evidence standard. 
The Petitioner also claims, through counsel, that his proposed endeavor of opening a supermarket is 
nationally important because it supports the U.S. economy by creating jobs, enhancing the food supply 
chain, and contributing to regional and potentially national economic growth. For the reasons stated 
below, however, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor has 
national importance. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 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." Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further stated that we consider the proposed endeavor's 
"potential prospective impact," and "look for broader implications" noting that "[a ]n undertaking may 
have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a 
particular field." Id. Further, "[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. 
The Petitioner provided a personal statement in support of his Form I-140 wherein he stated his 
proposed endeavor is to develop a supermarket located in Florida that distributes food products, 
including imported products from Brazil, Latin America, and Europe to the U.S. market. In the 
statement he claimed generally that the endeavor will generate jobs and thereby contribute to the 
national economy. 
The Petitioner also provided a business plan wherein he claimed the supermarket would initially target 
customers in I I Florida, and after two years begin to expand to three other cities in 
Florida. Including himself, the Petitioner intends to employ up to 35 employees in the first year of 
operation, and by year five of operations, claims the supermarket will have created 80 jobs. 
3 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted, in part, letters of recommendation and industry articles and 
reports. These submissions generally speak to the Petitioner's character and business experience, and 
the importance of immigration and entrepreneurship in the United States. The Petitioner also 
submitted an expert opinion letter that addresses the importance of the Brazilian economy and the 
Petitioner's background and experience. 
We acknowledge the evidence of the Petitioner's experience in the field of business management, as 
well as the overall impact food distribution has on the economy of the United States. Our focus, 
however, is on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake, rather than his 
credentials and experience or the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will 
work. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
information and evidence to demonstrate the benefit of opening a supermarket in Florida, while 
potentially benefitting customers and the local community in which it is located, has broader 
implications in the food distribution industry in the United States or globally. Additionally, the 
Petitioner's general assertions regarding the contributions his proposed endeavor will make to the food 
supply chain and national economy, and the unsupported projections in his business plan, are 
insufficient to demonstrate his proposed endeavor is nationally important. Finally, even if we were to 
conclude that the financial projections in the business plan regarding revenue growth and job creation 
are well-founded, which we do not, the Petitioner does not establish that the revenue or number of 
jobs created by his proposed endeavor initially, or over a five-year period, would result in substantial 
positive economic effects, nor that his business would be in an economically depressed area. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, requiring 
that he demonstrate his proposed endeavor is nationally important. We therefore conclude that he has 
not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
As noted above, the Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish he was well positioned 
to advance his proposed endeavor, or 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 under the remaining Dhanasar 
prongs. While the Petitioner contests these conclusions on appeal, because our determination that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor is not nationally important is dis positive of his appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments on these issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
at 25; 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4