dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Entrepreneurship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUGUST 1, 2024 In Re: 32461710 
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 the Petitioner qualified for 
EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but did not establish 
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 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 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 qualify for 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. 
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: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85 , 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublish ed decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• 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 
In his definitive statement, the Petitioner describes his proposed endeavor as developing and 
expanding his Turkish cotton towel and clothing business, _____ a limited liability 
company located in Florida. The Petitioner states he will serve as the company's founder and chief 
executive officer. The Petitioner's business plan explains the company will follow a drop shipping 
business model and operate a direct sales website. The plan states the company is incorporated in 
Florida and will undergo three stages of expansion to operate nationally. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. We agree. The only issue on appeal is whether he qualifies 
for and merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
1. Substantial Merit 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit of 
his proposed endeavor. We agree. 
2. National Importance 
The Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its 
potential prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed endeavor has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has 
other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, 
or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. The Director 
determined the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor would have substantial positive 
economic effects or a broader impact on his field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts his proposed endeavor has national importance because the articles 
he submitted show how immigrant entrepreneurs like the Petitioner "play a vital role in the recovery 
of the U.S. economy and directly contribute to the country's ongoing economic growth." The 
Petitioner submitted articles on immigrant entrepreneurs, entrepreneurial statistics, 55 percent of 
America's startups founded by immigrants, immigrants creating jobs, the impact of immigrant 
entrepreneurship, why America is still the land of opportunity for immigrant entrepreneurs, immigrant 
2 
business owners as key to America's economy, how immigration can fix America's labor shortage, 
the positive economic impact of immigration, why the United States is losing immigrant entrepreneurs 
to other nations, why businesses should support immigration reform, why supporting "documented 
dreamers" is a good idea, the Biden era's foreign-born boom, global trends in entrepreneurship, the 
advantages of starting a business in the United States, entrepreneurship trends for 2022-2023, 
immigrants and workforce development, and the need for an entrepreneurial revolution. 
The Petitioner claims the Director did not give due regard to these articles which he claims demonstrate 
the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The articles address the importance of 
entrepreneurship and the contributions of immigrant entrepreneurs to the United States, but they do 
not address his specific proposed endeavor. Our assessment of national importance does not focus on 
the importance of issues affecting a field or our nation in general, rather it "focuses on the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Here, none of the articles 
mention the Petitioner or address the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor. See id. 
( explaining we consider the proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact when assessing national 
importance). Consequently, the articles do not establish that his proposed endeavor would extend 
beyond his company's individual clients to impact these national interests more broadly. See id. 
( explaining "we look for broader implications"). 
The Petitioner also claims the Director did not give due regard to his business plan. The Petitioner's 
business plan projects his company will employ 13 people the first year increasing to 83 employees in 
the fifth year. The plan states the company's distribution center will be located in an economically 
depressed area and offer half of its positions to youth with low or no experience. The plan states the 
company's business development offices will also be located in underutilized areas but does not 
specify how many people those offices will employ. The plan projects the company's net income will 
be -$8,645 the first year, increasing to $368,307 in the fifth year. The plan states that the retail industry 
in the United States supports 52 million jobs and generates $3.9 trillion. In light of these industry 
statistics, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his company's projected employment and income 
will have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, even in an economically depressed area, or 
have other substantial positive economic effects commensurate with national importance. See id. at 
890 ( discussing significant potential to employ United States workers and other substantial positive 
economic effects as indicative of national importance). 
The Petitioner further asserts the Director did not fully consider his recommendation letters and 
evidence of his work in the field. The Petitioner submitted letters from employers and colleagues who 
praise his skills and accomplishments. For example, B-O-2 commended the Petitioner's contributions 
to I a television channel in Turkey and describes the Petitioner as "a unique professional that 
is sought after by many companies in his field." A-M-A- praises the Petitioner's work at a 
television station in Turkey and lauds the Petitioner as "a solver of problems" with "a passion for 
accomplishing goals with excellence." A-S-O- also attests to the Petitioner's achievements at 
and states he carried the channel "to a next level." O-H-B- describes how his partnership with the 
Petitioner helped his business and expresses his belief that the Petitioner will be "an asset to the United 
States." While they attest to his contributions to their companies, B-O-, A-M-A-, A-S-O- and O-H­
B- do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or any impact it would have in the retail industry. 
2 We use initials to protect the privacy of the referenced individuals. 
3 
The Petitioner submitted three additional letters in response to the Director's request for evidence. N­
A-H-, A-S-, and R-R-B- express their belief that the Petitioner "will undoubtedly contribute to the 
prosperity and well-being of the local community while fostering an environment of growth and 
opportunity." The text of these letters is nearly identical, which detracts from their probative value. 
The letters also do not specify how the Petitioner's company would extend beyond service to 
individual customers to impact the retail industry more broadly. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from V-L-, Associate Professor of Marketing at _____ 
I I expressing his opinion that the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver. V-L-
discusses the importance of entrepreneurship, small businesses, and immigrants to the American 
economy. He states the Petitioner can "generate great impact in the U.S. companies interested in his 
services," which "will translate in[to] benefits for the industry and the U.S. economy." V-L- does not 
specify how the Petitioner's work would extend beyond his company and its customers to impact the 
retail industry in a manner commensurate with national importance. Cf id. at 892 (stating Dhanasar 
submitted probative expert letters describing the importance of his specific research as it relates to 
U.S. strategic interests). 
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 
record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his 
company's clients to impact his field more broadly in a manner indicative of national importance. 
C. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor and he 
does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
( stating that "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 of L-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 
The 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, he has not demonstrated that he 
is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4