dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Food Service

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 25, 2024 In Re: 31508079 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. 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 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 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 establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of 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 that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• 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 job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
1 See also 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner intends 
to establish "a mixed used grocery store where fresh healthy staple goods will be offered along with 
fresh daily cooked meals prepared within the grocery store kitchen." She states her endeavor will be 
an essential service and "contribute towards healthy food accessibility, eliminate food insecurities and 
fill food gaps to those who are less advantaged individuals, families and communities" and that in 
addition to selling food at her business, she will sell it through cooperation with delivery services, 
employ and train local individuals, and offer cooking classes. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director mistakenly conflated her intended employment as a 
Director of Operations with her proposed endeavor, which "carries broader implications that extend 
beyond the specific nature of the intended work." However, the record reflects that the Director 
properly assessed the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, noting that she intends to "utilize her skills and 
experience to improve access to affordable and fresh healthy food and eliminate food insecurities to 
those who are less advantaged individuals, families and communities and those who live in food 
deserts" and that she would do so through her work in food service at her business. Furthermore, we 
have considered the case de novo and agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not the 
national importance, of the proposed endeavor. 
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 specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Although the Petitioner provided articles on food insecurity, food deserts in the United States, the 
importance of access to healthy food and its connection to American obesity, and efforts in the United 
States to improve and finance food access, 2 the matter here is not whether these issues are nationally 
important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed 
endeavor of opening a mixed use grocery store selling "fresh healthy staple goods" and "fresh daily 
cooked meals," beginning in I I Georgia and later expanding to other cities. Likewise, her 
submission of market research reports about the supermarket and grocery store industry do not 
establish the national importance of her particular professional services or business. 3 
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. We also stated that "[ a ]n endeavor that has significant 
2 Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than its 
national importance. 
2 
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 stresses her "extensive experience" and "skills set for essential service." However, the 
Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities 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 she proposes to undertake has national importance under 
Dhanasar 's first prong. 
The Petitioner submits letters of support, recommendations, and pos1t1ve feedback from former 
professors, colleagues, and customers. The letters discuss the Petitioner's particular skills, experience, 
and services, including her university education, work in human resources and employee training for 
a grocery store chain, and ownership and operation of a restaurant. However, the letters do not show 
the broader impact of the Petitioner's work beyond that to her specific employers and customers. 
While the writer of one letter, a human resources official, discusses food deserts and states that the 
Petitioner has the skills to train workers so that they can access higher wages, the source of his 
knowledge about the Petitioner or her specific endeavor is not clear. Moreover, the letters4 cover the 
Petitioner's prior work and accomplishments and relate more to the second prong rather than the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director's statement that the letter writers did not "provide 
specific examples of how the petitioner influences the field or industry beyond adding to the general 
pool of knowledge" or demonstrate a record of success in the field. The Petitioner correctly notes that 
whether her work has influenced her field of endeavor and has a record of success relates to whether 
she is well-positioned to advance that endeavor, not to the endeavor's national importance. However, 
the Director's use of this language was harmless, as the Petitioner still has not submitted sufficient 
evidence to meet her burden of showing that her proposed endeavor is nationally important, and we 
need not reach whether she is well-positioned to advance it. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. Here, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her business would largely influence the field and rise to the 
level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. The record does not show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's endeavor 
of operating a mixed use grocery store sufficiently extends beyond her prospective customers and 
employees to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
Finally, while she provided a business plan for the proposed company, the Petitioner did not present 
sufficient supporting evidence corroborating the assertions and figures. Moreover, the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate how her business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if 
4 We also note that the resumes accompanying several of the letters are written in the same format despite allegedly 
reflecting the professional and educational experience of different individuals. 
3 
credible or plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial 
positive economic effects for our nation. The Petitioner submitted a business plan which discusses 
her two existing businesses - a cafe and a prepared food company - and explains her intention to 
"redirect" the cafe from a "quick service restaurant" to a "mixed use grocery store that includes freshly 
cooked meals and fresh grocery staples" and to continue operating the prepared food company as a 
"meal packaging company selling prepared meals" to grocery stores and wholesalers. Although the 
business plan forecasts total sales of $780,000 in the first year and $2,168,517 by the fifth year, the 
Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits to the regional or 
national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Similarly, even though the business plan claims the creation of 25 jobs in year 
one and 71 jobs by the end of year five, with payroll expenses totaling $1,338,894 in the fifth year, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate the relevance of these numbers and show that such future staffing 
levels would provide substantial economic benefits to the regions in which she intends to focus 5 or the 
U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner, for 
instance, did not establish that such employment figures would utilize a significant population of 
workers in the area or would substantially impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally 
or nationally. For all these reasons, the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits 
provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader 
implications rising to the level of having national importance or that it would offer substantial positive 
economic effects. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis ofthe Petitioner's eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 6 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated she is eligible for or otherwise merits 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. 
5 The Petitioner states she plans to open three stores over the course of the first five years, beginning in I I Georgia 
and then expanding to Hawaii and "the Southern States." In another p01iion of the business plan, she reiterates her intention 
to establish three locations in the first five years but also states she will focus on Georgia, Hawaii, Texas, Alabama, and 
Florida during that time period. 
6 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 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
4