dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Franchise Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 25, 2024 InRe : 31676244 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a franchise business manager and operations director, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as 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 petition, concluding the Petitioner qualified for 
EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability, but did not establish 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 qualify for 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 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 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) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublish ed decision) 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In his business plan, the Petitioner states that he will serve as chief executive officer ofl 
a limited liability company headquartered inl IFlorida. The business plan explains that 
I I will assist U.S. companies to scale their sales to other markets using the franchise model 
and help existing American franchises improve their operations and expand their markets. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability. We agree. The only issue on appeal is whether he qualifies for and merits a waiver 
of the job offer requirement in the national interest. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. We agree. 
The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed 
endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed 
area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within 
the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. The Director 
determined the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor would have a broad impact on 
his field rising to the level of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director did not consider all of the evidence and statements he 
submitted. De novo review of the record shows no error in the Director's assessment of the relevant 
evidence and claims. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration of the petition, and has made 
adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim a petitioner makes, nor is 
it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence a petitioner presents. See Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 
F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022); Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir. 1992); aff'd Morales v. 
INS, 208 F.3d 323,328 (1st Cir. 2000); see also Pakasi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 2009); and 
Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009). 
The Petitioner claims his company will have national importance because it has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers and will have other substantial positive economic effects. The Petitioner's 
business plan projects his company will employ four other individuals in the first year, increasing to 
2 
31 in the fifth year. The Petitioner also submitted a chart forecasting his company would additionally 
indirectly create five jobs the first year, increasing to 47 by the fifth year. The business plan forecasts 
a profit of $9,276 the first year increasing to $561,961 by the fifth year, and projects the company will 
pay $486,189 in state, federal, and payroll taxes by the fifth year. The Petitioner's business plan states 
that the franchising industry generates millions of jobs and franchised businesses contribute $670 
billion to the U.S. economy. The Petitioner has not established that the employment of four to 31 
people directly and up to 47 people indirectly shows a significant potential to employ U.S. workers in 
an industry that employes millions of people. The Petitioner also has not demonstrated that a profit 
reaching $561,961 and tax payments reaching $486,189 would have a substantial positive economic 
effect in an industry that contributes $670 billion to the national economy. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 890 ( discussing significant potential to employ United States workers and other substantial 
positive economic effects as indicative of national importance). 
The Petitioner also asserts the media articles, industry publications and business plan he submitted 
shows his company will have national or even global implications within his field. The Petitioner 
submitted articles on the 2021 economic outlook for franchising, the state of small businesses in 2021, 
a 2022 national franchise report, and the Small Business Administration (SBA) franchise directory. 
These articles attest to the importance of franchises and small businesses, but they do not indicate the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance. Our assessment of national importance does 
not focus on the importance of a field in general, rather it "focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Here, none of the articles mention the Petitioner, 
or otherwise address the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner also 
submitted a book he authored entitled _______ The Petitioner did not explain the 
relevance of the book to his proposed endeavor or document any contributions his book has made or 
would make to the franchise industry. See id. ( discussing improved manufacturing processes or 
medical advances as examples of national or even global implications within a particular field). 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from V-L-2, Associate Professor of Marketing at II I expressing his opinion that the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver, which the 
Petitioner asserts attests to the national importance of his proposed endeavor. V-L- discusses the size 
and growth of the global consulting market and the importance of small businesses to the nation's 
economy. He does not, however, specify how the Petitioner's company would extend beyond its 
clientele to impact the global consulting market or small businesses generally on a level commensurate 
with national importance. See id. ( explaining "we look for broader implications"). V-L- also cites the 
Petitioner's knowledge of the Brazilian commercial sector and notes that the United States designated 
Brazil as a major non-NA TO ally in 2019. While he discusses the importance of partnering with Latin 
American firms for U.S. firms with no presence in Latin America, V-L- does not discuss how the 
Petitioner's company would impact commercial relations between the United States, Brazil and Latin 
America beyond its work with individual businesses. Cf. id. at 892 (stating Dhanasar submitted 
probative expert letters describing the importance of his specific research as it relates to U.S. strategic 
interests). 
The Petitioner further claims his proposed endeavor has national importance because it impacts a 
matter that a government entity has described as having national importance and is the subject of 
2 We use initials to protect the privacy of the referenced individual. 
3 
national initiatives. The Petitioner states President Biden has spoken about the critical need of 
entrepreneurs and cites U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy on evaluating 
evidence submitted by entrepreneurs. The Petitioner does not submit evidence of the President's 
remarks on entrepreneurs. In regards to assessing an entrepreneur's eligibility for a national interest 
waiver, USCIS policy states, "[e]vidence establishing the petitioner's past entrepreneurial 
achievements and that corroborates projections of future work in the national interest are favorable 
factors. Claims lacking corroborating evidence are not sufficient to meet the petitioner's burden of 
proof" 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.D(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/. The Petitioner did 
not submit evidence that his company would impact governmental or federal matters or initiatives on 
the franchise industry on a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner also claims there are "countless governmental initiatives" that support franchises and 
cites the SBA franchise directory. The Petitioner submitted evidence of this directory but did not 
demonstrate how his company's work with individual franchises would impact his field more broadly. 
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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 893. Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently 
extend beyond his company's clientele to impact his field more broadly in a manner indicative of 
national importance. 
The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers, would have other substantial positive economic effects, would have national or even global 
implications within his field, or would have other broad implications indicating national importance. 
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor and he 
does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
( stating that "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 of L-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 
The 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, he has not demonstrated that he 
is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4