dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Food Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 16, 2023 In Re: 26958639 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a food scientist, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 immigrant 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 qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 (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 also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS ' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature) . 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she 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; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. Id. at 890. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national 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 foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
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. Id. at 890-91. 
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 waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. Upon 
de novo review, we find the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his endeavor satisfies the national 
importance element of Dhanasar's first prong, as discussed below. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to continue his career "as a Food Scientist in the field of Wheat 
Research and production, Food Safety, Education and Training" according to the document entitled 
"A Plan for Future Activities in the US." However, the Petitioner's initial description of the proposed 
endeavor does not provide any other details beyond his intention to work as a food scientist for an 
unidentified U.S. government entity or pasta producing business. The Petitioner farther states that he 
will pursue research as a graduate student assistant and help students to explore the area of food 
science, but the record does not include specific research papers or plans corroborating his claims. 
2 
The Director's request for evidence (RFE) sought further information and evidence that the Petitioner 
meets each of three prongs of Dhanasar framework. In response, the Petitioner introduced a business 
plan for a company named.__ ______ _.and proposed to manufacture and sell pasta, as well 
as provide training on food quality control to other food industries . The Director found the Petitioner's 
newly proposed endeavor to be contradictory in nature and issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID) 
asking for clarification. In response to NOID, the Petitioner resubmitted his original plans of working 
as a food scientist for a government entity or pasta company . The Petitioner also alluded to his 
unpublished post-graduate research on optimum energy use and reduction of food waste in wheat pasta 
production but did not provide any corroborating evidence of his research. The Director ultimately 
denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, but not 
national importance . 2 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a one-page statement contending that his proposed endeavor is of 
national importance as it will improve the quality of the wheat grain products and thereby improve 
the health of many Americans. 3 The Petitioner provides several articles regarding importance of 
wheat-based products and their health benefits for the U.S. population . However, merely working in 
an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
Instead , we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake ." See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we 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. 
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. Likewise, the 
record here does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficientl y extend beyond 
his potential employer s to impact the field of food safety and production more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Instead, the record contains articles emphasizing importance 
of food safety and foodbome illness , as well as recommendation letters from the Petitioner's former 
co-workers stating that the Petitioner is a dedicated employee who contributed to reducing food waste 
and improving quality and safety of pasta production process at the place of his employment. These 
letters and industry articles do not discuss any particulars of the Petitioner's specific endeavor or its 
prospective impact rising to the level of national importance. 
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, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ 
U.S . workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation . Without 
sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
2 The Director did not analyze the second prong - whether the petitioner is well-positioned to carry out his endeavor - but 
concluded that be also did not meet the third prong of Dhanasa r. 
3 The Petitioner stated on the Form I-290B that he will not be submitting a brief and/or additional evidence. As the 
Petitioner makes no other claims regarding other factual or legal errors made by the Director, we deem them waived. 
Matter ofZhang , 27 I&N Dec. 569, 569 n.2 (BIA 2019) (finding that issues not appealed are deemed as abandoned) ; see 
also United States v. Fernandez Sanchez, 46 F.4th 211 , 219 (4th Cir. 2022) (finding the failure to raise arguments regarding 
eligibility waives those arguments on appeal). 
3 
attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's employment within the field of food safety would reach the level 
of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. 
In addition, the Petitioner 's business plan forl lby itself does not sufficiently detail 
the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be 
realized. The Petitioner asserts that his experience in the pasta industry will "attract restaurants in 
purchasing Company's artisan pasta" inl !Maryland where the company will be located. The 
Petitioner further claims that I I will "increase its gross revenues from $1,030,300 
in Year 1 to $1,807,785 in Year 5" and "increase its total employee count to seven, with payroll 
expenses starting at $193,000 in Year 1 which will rise to $326,460 in Year 5." Yet aside from this 
business plan, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence that his company's future 
staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits to a region or the 
United States. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Petitioner did not establish national importance of the 
proposed endeavor and does not meet the first prong of Dhanasar. Since the identified basis for 
denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the 
Petitioner's arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs. 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 
l&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 find that 
the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4