dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Foreign Trade

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 03, 2024 In Re: 34837395 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a foreign trade specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an 
individual of exceptional ability, 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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(national interest waiver), concluding 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying 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 establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&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) Uoining the Third , Ninth , Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts 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. 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner does not merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer 
requirement "in the national interest." While the Director found the Petitioner had established the 
substantial merit of her proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong and that she was well­
positioned to advance her proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong, the Petitioner had not 
established the national importance of her proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong and was 
therefore ineligible for a national interest waiver. The Director further determined that analyzing the 
issue of whether the Petitioner had established, on balance, that waiving the job offer requirement 
would benefit the United States under Dhanasar 's third prong would serve no purpose. 
We note that in the initial filing, the Petitioner argued she qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa 
classification both as an advanced degree professional and also as an individual of exceptional ability. 
However, the Director's decision did not analyze whether the Petitioner meets the underlying EB-2 
visa classification. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director acknowledged she was an 
advanced degree professional. However, the record does not suppmi the Petitioner's asse1iions that 
the Director determined whether she was an advanced degree professional or an individual of 
exceptional ability and had thereby established her eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa 
classification. 
Because we conclude the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong, which is dispositive of this appeal, we reserve the issues of 
whether the Petitioner has established her eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as an 
advanced degree professional or as an individual of exceptional ability, and whether she has 
demonstrated the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 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 of L-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). 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. The Petitioner, a foreign trade specialist, intends to perform her 
services in commercial strategic planning and international negotiations and partnerships in the 
purchasing sector of the field of aeronautics. According to her professional plan, her endeavor will 
impact the United States by enhancing profitability, production, and agility of U.S. companies and 
will enable business growth by improving the qualifications of the U.S. workforce to enable business 
growth by providing guidance and training to American workers in areas such as cross-cultural 
communication, negotiation, and strategic planning. In response to the Director's Request for 
2 
Evidence (RFE),2 the Petitioner submitted a supplement to her proposed plan, adding, in relevant part, 
her intention of pursuing volunteer projects that will impact communities in the United States by 
providing strategic planning for Non-Government Organizations (NGO)s. She also explains that her 
endeavor will involve implementing an "aerochain optimization initiative" which will focus on 
mitigating material shortages, optimizing inventory, and improving production schedules to support 
the financial goals of U.S. based aeronautical companies. As noted above, the Director determined 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we noted that, in 
assessing national importance, "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 at 890. 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. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner will be limited to serving the clientele of the company she 
will be potentially working for and that the evidence in the record did not demonstrate how her 
proposed endeavor will extend beyond the organization and its clients to impact the industry or field 
more broadly. The Director further determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the specific 
endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise 
offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation as contemplated by Dhanasar. We agree. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by not considering her evidence in support of 
the national importance of her proposed endeavor and she specifically identified a support letter and 
three articles. She argues this documentation establishes that her work has a direct and positive 
influence on the U.S. economy. She explains that the letter corroborates the impact of her work in 
supply chain processes, and demonstrates that her efforts will contribute to a more efficient and 
resilient production base, which supports economic stability and growth. However, the Petitioner's 
documentation does not support her assertions that her proposed endeavor would lead to economic 
stability or growth or demonstrate that her proposed endeavor would result in national or global 
implications for the field or provide substantial economic benefits regionally or at a level of national 
importance. Although the letter discusses her work as it relates to supply chain efficiency, it does not 
demonstrate the broader impact of her work but rather limits the analysis to her achievements aiding 
a specific client of her former employer. One of the articles highlighted by the Petitioner described 
this former employer, a global aerospace company. Based on the article, the Petitioner claims her 
contributions to her employer demonstrate her capability to impact global supply chain dynamics 
positively. However, neither the letter nor the article speaks to how the Petitioner's contributions to 
her employer resulted in or would result in national or even global implications within the field. 
Moreover, the support letter described the Petitioner's skills and experience and relate to the second 
2 On appeal the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by stating in the decision that a notice of intent to deny was issued 
in her case when it was an RFE that the Director issued. While the Petitioner is correct that the Director issued an RFE in 
her case, we do not conclude that this misstatement affected the analysis of the Director's decision. Further, as relief for 
this error, the Petitioner seeks review of the decision, which is what our de nova review of the record provides the 
Petitioner. 
3 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
national." Id. at 890. The other two articles highlighted by the Petitioner describe the importance of 
transportation and supply chain management, specifically in aerospace and defense sectors. However, 
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." Id. at 889. Consequently, the Petitioner's evidence does not 
show how her services would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer 
substantial positive economic effects regionally or nationally as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 
890. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that her proposed endeavor embodies a commitment to societal 
welfare as it includes strategic voluntary projects such as providing strategic planning for NGOs. 
However, as discussed above, it is not the importance of the area the Petitioner will work that 
demonstrates the national importance of her proposed endeavor. Rather, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of providing her services as a 
foreign trade specialist in commercial strategic planning and international negotiations and 
partnerships in the purchasing sector of the field of aeronautics. For example, the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor includes enhancing profitability, production, and agility of U.S. companies by 
improving the qualifications of the U.S. workforce by providing guidance and training to U.S. workers 
in areas such as cross-cultural communication, negotiation, and strategic planning. However, the 
Petitioner does not explain how her proposed endeavor would offer benefits extending beyond her 
trainees to impact the field of aeronautics more broadly. Furthermore, we add that the Dhanasar 
decision contemplates that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it 
has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. at 893. However, the Petitioner has not 
established the extent to which her proposed endeavor's methods and teachings in, for example, cross­
cultural communication, negotiation, and strategic planning differ from or improves upon those 
already available and in use in the United States such that her proposed endeavor would have national 
or global implications within her field or for the United States. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that, beyond the limited benefits provided to 
her prospective employers, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications in the field of 
aeronautics or that it has the significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area for instance, rising to the 
level of national importance. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor 
under the first Dhanasar prong, and therefore has not established that she merits, as a matter of 
discretion, a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4