dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Filmmaking

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 13, 2024 In Re: 30186429 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner 
also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 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 
unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
is discretionary in nature). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but 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. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 53 7, 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 a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree 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. 
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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, 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. 
See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found 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 of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer is warranted. 
The Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan to found a consulting and production company "for 
filmmaking, cameramen, and videomaking, specializing in live broadcasting, that will be located in 
the heart of Orlando, Florida." The Petitioner submitted a business plan, which describes the 
company's target customers and clients as television stations, social media companies and content 
creators, advertising agencies, event-planning companies, tourist and hospitality companies, 
restaurants, and real estate business. The business plan describes the services the company would 
provide as operating cameras and producing live broadcasts, recording customers or clients' 
"corporate/institutional/training/advertisement and art videos," and recording its own tutorial videos 
"to show the operation of products or services in more detail[,] explain to the consumer the most 
advanced features of the products or services, and add a clearer message to the audience." The 
business plan also indicates that the company would employ four workers in the first year of operation, 
increasing to a total of seven workers by the fifth year of operation, including the Petitioner, 
respectively. Although the business plan does not clarify the number of workers in the particular job 
categories the company would hire or when the company would hire them, the plan indicates that the 
company's workers would include camera operators, audio and video technicians, film and video 
editors, and receptionists. 
The Director acknowledged that "the [P]etitioner's proposed endeavor to open a consultancy, 
advisory, and training office in filmmaking, cameramen, and videomaking is of substantial merit." 
However, the Director observed that the record does not establish whether "the potential prospective 
impact of the [P]etitioner's specific proposed endeavor would have any implications beyond any 
clients, employees, individuals, or entities with whom he would work, to impact the field, industry, or 
the economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance." The Director also 
observed that the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may "offer the region (Florida) 
or its population a substantial positive economic benefit as contemplated by Dhanasar (such as 
through employment levels, business activity, investment, or related tax revenue)." The Director 
2 
concluded that the record does not establish the proposed endeavor may have national importance, as 
required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. The Director further concluded the record does not 
satisfy the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See id. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director imposed novel requirements. The Petitioner also 
asserts that a letter ostensibly from an assistant professor at the University ofl !School 
of the Arts, dated September 2022, "fulfill[ s] the criteria for demonstrating national interest." The 
Petitioner further asserts that he is "a STEM professional" and, thus, that "[h]]is proposed endeavor 
indisputably impacts a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or 
is the subject of national importance." 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 
"specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as 
required by the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such 
as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors 
that have broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
We first note that, although some of the Director's statements paraphrase language from Dhanasar, 
the Director's specific conclusions mirror Dhanasar's plain language. In particular, the Petitioner first 
objects that the Director's language, "employment of a significant population of workers in the area," 
misapplies Dhanasar's language, "significant potential to employ U.S. workers." Id. at 890. The 
Petitioner specifically notes that the "Director shifted the position of the adjective significant for it to 
operate as if a large number of workers must be employed to establish national importance; however, 
as per Dhanasar that is not the case, as significant serves to the possibility of hiring US workers with 
no reference to quantity." However, the same sentence in the Director's decision that contains the 
first phrase to which the Petitioner objects also contains the exact phrase from Dhanasar as follows: 
Thus, USCIS cannot conclude that the [P]etitioner's specific proposed endeavor has 
national or even global implications; has sign[ficant potential to employ US. workers; 
will broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment; or the area 
where he will pursue the specific proposed endeavor is economically depressed, that 
the specific proposed endeavor would somehow lead to the employment of a significant 
population of workers in the area, or that it would somehow offer a region or its 
population a substantial positive economic benefit as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Id. at 890. 
( emphasis added). Because the Director clarified that the record does not establish the proposed 
endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, as contemplated by Dhanasar-not only 
in the decision but in the same sentence as the language to which the Petitioner objects-the Director's 
observations regarding the endeavor's potential to employ a significant number of workers 1s 
essentially dicta, to the extent that it does not merely paraphrase language from Dhanasar. 
3 
The Petitioner next objects that the Director's language, "or that it would somehow offer the region 
(Florida) or its population a substantial positive economic benefit," misapplies Dhanasar's language, 
"or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." 
Id. The Petitioner specifically notes that the "Director changed the legal recommendation for the 
proposed endeavor having substantial positive economic effects for it to offer the population 
substantial economic benefit." The Petitioner then summarizes definitions of "effect" and "benefit," 
including that a definition of "benefit" is, essentially, something that produces a positive effect. 
Nevertheless, the Petitioner asserts that, by paraphrasing Dhanasar's language with a synonym, "the 
Director is stating that such endeavor must have already produced economic advantages to the 
population and the region which supersedes the legal recommendation." 
Regardless of whether there is a meaningful distinction between the synonyms of positive effects and 
benefits, the Director specifically did not require the endeavor to "have already produced economic 
advantages," as the Petitioner asserts on appeal. On the contrary, the Director specifically addressed 
whether the proposed endeavor "would somehow offer the region (Florida) or its population a 
substantial positive economic benefit" ( emphasis added). The Director's specific contemplation of 
what the record establishes the endeavor "would ... offer" prospectively does not require, as the 
Petitioner asserts on appeal, the endeavor to "have already produced economic advantages." In 
summation, we do not find that the Director imposed novel requirements when analyzing whether the 
record establishes the proposed endeavor may have national importance. 
Next, as noted above, the record contains a letter ostensibly from an assistant professor at the 
University ofl ISchool of the Arts, dated September 2022. However, the signature on 
the final page is unusually small for the space provided, it is fuzzy and pixelated, and it appears in 
varying shades of gray, unlike the sharp, uniformly black text throughout the body of the letter. These 
characteristics indicate that it is a low-resolution image of a signature that could have been attached 
to the document in a word processor by any individual, rather than indicating that the assistant 
professor signed the document himself See generally 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2) (describing acceptable 
signatures on paper documents, in relevant part, as "handwritten"). 
The conspicuous, apparent image of a signature casts doubt on whether the purported signatory 
actually wrote the letter and, thus, that it reflects his opinions. This doubt undermines the reliability 
and sufficiency of the letter, and of the remainder of the documents in the record. Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (providing that doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may 
undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa 
petition). Because the letter's reliability and sufficiency are undermined, it bears minimal probative 
value, and we need not address it further. 
Next, contrary to the Petitioner's assertions on appeal, whether a petitioner qualifies as a member of 
the professions with an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) 
does not affect the analysis of whether a proposed endeavor may have national importance. In all 
national interest waiver cases, the record must establish that a proposed endeavor-STEM-based or 
otherwise-has both substantial merit and national importance. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. To assess national importance, the relevant question 
is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, we 
4 
focus on the "specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor of founding a motion picture consulting and production company 
appears to benefit the Petitioner, as the company's owner, and the individuals and entities who may 
use the company's services as customers and clients. However, the record does not establish how the 
endeavor may have broader implications within the field of television production, filmmaking, live 
video broadcasting, or any other field, with the type of "national or even global implications within a 
particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical 
advances," contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. at 889-90. The record does not establish how the 
Petitioner's plan to employ a total of seven workers, including himself, in the job positions noted 
above, in the I I Florida, area, demonstrates the proposed endeavor may have a "significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." Id. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We 
reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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 the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5