dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Food Service Entrepreneurship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 23, 2024 In Re: 29126888 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, describing himself as a food service entrepreneur, 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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional, but further determined that he did not demonstrate his 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. 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. 
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 USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also 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). 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, stated in support of the petition that he worked as a chief 
executive officer and owner in "critical and leading capacities" for over 23 years. The Petitioner 
asserted that through his entrepreneurial ventures in the food industry in the United States, he would 
have "ripple effects generated upon significant commercial matters, the domestic job market, the 
national economy, and the overall business ecosystem." The Petitioner indicating that his proposed 
endeavor would "bring to the U.S. economy .. .improved productivity, spurring innovation, and 
creating jobs [sic]," as well as "enhance strategic, operational, marketing, and sales management 
capabilities." The Petitioner emphasized the impact that immigrant entrepreneurs have on the U.S. 
economy, indicating that they create an average of 1,200 jobs per new company. The Petitioner stated 
he would expand and develop a company in the United States, L-C- Corp., "focused on offering food 
establishments with a focus on natural and healthy foods" and a menu offering "coffees, fresh natural, 
and healthy food, with a peculiar Brazilian touch of good service." The Petitioner asserted that the 
business would generate over $3 million in revenue and hire a total of 270 people during the first five 
years. He also contended that the company would offer "unique products and services," "reduce 
dependence on obsolete systems and technologies, resulting in greater economic freedom," and "apply 
the latest technologies." The Petitioner indicated that the new company would open locations in Hub 
Zones, further benefiting U.S. economic development. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter fro a professor of 
business management at the~--------------------------~ 
stated that the food services industry has substantial economic impact in the United States and asserted 
that, given the Petitioner's knowledge of the Brazilian business and food services sector, he could 
expand his company into Brazil and other international markets, helping U.S. food services companies. 
I Ifurther pointed to the Petitioner's "impressive record of business achievements in the 
food services industry in Brazil" and his "intimate knowledge of the Brazilian business and legal 
environment." 
The Director later issued a request for evidence (RFE) concluding the Petitioner had established that 
his proposed endeavor had substantial merit. However, the Director indicated the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that his proposed endeavor would have national importance. The Director stated the 
Petitioner did not provide sufficient detail and supporting evidence to establish that the endeavor 
would offer substantial economic benefits in its region, or in the nation generally. The Director further 
indicated the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the specific work he proposed to undertake would 
offer original innovations to the food services field more broadly, as claimed. As such, the Director 
requested that the Petitioner submit additional evidence to establish the endeavor's potential 
prospective impact, such as documentation to substantiate how it would have national or global 
implications in the field, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have other substantial 
economic effects, broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, or significantly 
impact a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance. 
2 
In response, the Petitioner pointed to his skills and experience, asserting his "strong innovation skills, 
entrepreneurial spirit, and experience as a lecturer," his work in gastronomy and events as a barista 
and chef: and his "23 years of extensive professional experience." The Petitioner stated that he would 
"benefit any U.S. companies and businesses that need qualified professionals who possess expertise 
in recruiting, training, and managing staff: maintaining a safe and legal work environment, setting 
strategic goals, managing finances, ensuring quality service, and continuously developing professional 
and technical knowledge to contribute to the team's success, which he plans to continue to infuse in 
the U.S." The Petitioner emphasized submitted industry reports and articles showing how business 
management, development, and sales professionals play a crucial role in businesses, "institutionalizing 
effective sales and management strategies that align well with market occurrences and fluctuating 
regulations." The Petitioner appeared to assert that he could provide these professional services to 
U.S. companies. In a provided business plan, the Petitioner stated that his proposed company would 
open a chain of franchised restaurants, developing local economies and impacting HUB Zones within 
which they would be opened. 
As discussed, the Director concluded the Petitioner established that his proposed endeavor had 
substantial merit. However, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner's assertions 
regarding the national impact of his proposed endeavor were not supported by independent objective 
evidence and lacked specificity to establish that it would have broader implications on a national or 
even global scale or have substantive positive economic impacts. For instance, the Director reasoned 
that the Petitioner did not provide evidence from potential customers, users, investors, or other 
independent sources to demonstrate the plausibility of his business plans. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again stresses that the Petitioner is "an international business expert with 
more than twenty-three (23) years of experience within business development and administrative 
operations management roles," stressing that he would "advise U.S. companies on how to properly 
plan, direct and coordinate the operations of public and private sector organizations." The Petitioner 
asserts that its company would hire 15 employees in the first year and he would "plan, procure, direct, 
coordinate, and execute business operations to assist small and medium sized companies in the U.S. 
to grow." The Petitioner again points to submitted reports and articles discussing the importance of 
sales managers and business development professionals and asserts that he would "create value for 
U.S. organizations "through improved performance, achieved by providing objective advice regarding 
optimization of business processes using industry methodologies, as well as implementing effective 
business management and development, and sales and marketing techniques." The Petitioner states 
that capable immigrants such as the Petitioner are important to foreign direct investment (FDI) and 
U.S. job creation, noting that $60 billion in FDI is generated annually by foreign-owned firms. 
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." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we 
farther 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. 
3 
at 890. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. 
First, on appeal and throughout the record, the Petitioner regularly emphasizes his skills and 
experience in the food industry, as well as in business development and administrative operations 
management roles. The Petitioner also provided approximately seven support letters from colleagues, 
emphasizing his prior work on projects and his expertise. In contrast, none of these support letters 
discuss the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's specifically proposed endeavor. In 
addition, the Petitioner provided an expert opinion from I l from the.__ _____ ___,
I I outlining the Petitioner's skills and experience and his "impressive record of business 
achievements in the food services industry in Brazil" and his "intimate knowledge of the Brazilian 
business and legal environment." But the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field 
relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he 
proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar' s first prong. 
The Petitioner also submitted generic and unsupported assertions regarding the potential prospective 
impact of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor would have "ripple 
effects generated upon significant commercial matters, the domestic job market, the national economy, 
and the overall business ecosystem." The Petitioner farther asserted his proposed endeavor would 
"bring to the U.S. economy .. .improved productivity, spurring innovation, and creating jobs," as well 
as "enhance strategic, operational, marketing, and sales management capabilities" in the United States. 
However, the Petitioner did not sufficiently articulate and document these asserted "ripple effects," 
the "significant commercial matters" he would impact, or how he would improve productivity within 
the U.S. economy, spur innovation, or enhance marketing and sales management on a national level. 
As discussed, the Petitioner also emphasized the impact that immigrant entrepreneurs have on the U.S. 
economy, asserting that they create an average of 1,200 jobs per new company, but it is not clear how 
the impact of all immigrant entrepreneurs on the U.S. economy specifically supports the potential 
prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor. He also contended that his company would 
offer "unique products and services," "reduce dependence on obsolete systems and technologies, 
resulting in greater economic freedom," and "apply the latest technologies," but he did not specify or 
document the new products and services he would introduce, systems and technologies he would 
utilize, or technologies he would introduce to the food services industry. For example, the Petitioner 
discussed the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning several times on the record, however, 
he did not describe how this would be applicable to the food services industry or cause his proposed 
endeavor to have a prospective impact on a national level. In fact, the Petitioner appeared to provide 
differing assertions with respect to his proposed endeavor, in some cases appearing to indicate that he 
would open a chain of franchised health food restaurants, and elsewhere suggesting he would provide 
consulting services to small and medium size businesses on business development and administrative 
operations. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). 
Likewise, the Petitioner emphasized submitted industry reports and articles showing how business 
management, development, and sales professionals play a crucial role in businesses, "institutionalizing 
4 
effective sales and management strategies that align well with market occurrences and fluctuating 
regulations." The Petitioner also indicated that he could provide these professional services to U.S. 
companies. Although we acknowledge that management, business development, and sales 
professionals may contribute to the economy generally, this evidence does little to substantiate the 
prospective national impact of the Petitioner 's specifically proposed endeavor. The impact of all 
management, business development, and sales professionals aggregately, is not relevant to 
demonstrating his potential prospective national impact individually. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that its company would hire 15 employees in the first year and he would "plan, procure, direct, 
coordinate, and execute business operations to assist small and medium sized companies in the U.S. 
to grow." However, the Petitioner provides little explanation as to how its hiring projections would 
have a national impact, particularly since it provides statistics indicating that his company would 
operate in several large industries, including the health and wellness food market he states accounts 
for approximately $18.4 billion in annual revenue and the franchising industry generating $670 billion 
in revenue in 2020. 
The Petitioner also points to submitted reports and articles discussing the importance of sales managers 
and business development professionals and asserts that he would "create value for U.S. organizations 
through improved performance, achieved by providing objective advice regarding optimization of 
business processes using industry methodologies, as well as implementing effective business 
management and development, sales and marketing techniques." Again, the Petitioner does not detail 
or document the advice he would provide, business processes and methodologies he would work with, 
or business management and sales and marketing techniques he would implement, nor the specific 
clients to which he would provide these professional services. Similarly, the Petitioner states that 
immigrants such as the Petitioner are important to FDI and U.S. job creation, noting that $60 billion 
in FDI generated annually by foreign-owned firms. The Petitioner provides little explanation and 
documentation to substantiate that his specific endeavor, rather than immigrants generally, would 
generate substantial FDI as necessary to have a national impact. The Petitioner has not supported his 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
376. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the business would generate over $3 million in revenue and hire a total 
of 270 people during the first five years, and that the new company would open locations in Hub 
Zones, further benefiting U.S. economic development. Yet, the Petitioner does not sufficiently 
describe in detail the nature of the services his company would provide. For instance, the Petitioner 
submitted hiring projections reflecting that his proposed company would hire two financial analysts, 
five franchise analysts, five sales representatives, and three data analysts, employees whose roles are 
not clear given that the new company proposed to operate in the health food services industry. The 
Petitioner does not sufficiently explain and document how his business plans would have a national 
impact on this major U.S. industry. In sum, the Petitioner's business plan does not demonstrate that 
his proposed endeavor would, more likely than not, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers 
or generate other substantial positive economic effects. Id. 
The Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of his proposed business would rise to the level of national importance. 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
5 
at 893. As noted by the Director, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
stands to sufficiently extend beyond his proposed clientele, even if such clientele were sufficiently 
identified and documented. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor 
would have a broad influence commensurate with national importance . 
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 , we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments with respect to the second and third prong outlined in 
Dhanasar. 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 he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion . 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6