dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Gastronomy/Entrepreneurship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 27, 2025 In Re: 29833376 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as 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 petition, concluding the Petitioner established 
eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification but did not demonstrate 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
If petitioners establish 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 ofDhanasar, 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 petitioners demonstrate: 
• 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. 
Id. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature) . 
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 continue to advance [her] career in the United States as an Entrepreneurship / Chef contributing to 
direct, produce, create, and make substantial contributions for the improvement of the Business, 
Entrepreneurship, and the Gastronomy industry in the United States." Specifically, the Petitioner 
aspires to "lead and manage the operations of ..,a U.S. based enterprise founded 
on I I 2022, in the State of Florida Iwhich "will specialize in catering and 
consulting services." 
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 record reflects the Petitioner's proposed endeavor falls within the substantial merit 
aspect of Dhanasar. 
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 documentation regarding a wide range of topics, such as foreign entrepreneurs, 
entrepreneurship, gastronomy, food habits, and cuisine, the matter here is not whether these subjects 
are nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her 
specific, proposed endeavor of providing her services through her company in thel IFlorida 
area. 2 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 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. 
Moreover, the record includes an expert opinion letter from F-J-Q- who found the proposed endeavor 
to have national importance. However, the letter discusses the importance of various topics, sectors, 
and initiatives rather than focusing on the national importance of the Petitioner's specific, proposed 
endeavor. In addition, the letter does not explain how the Petitioner's particular services or company 
would have broader implications for our country. 
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 services or 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. Similarly, the record does not show through supporting documentation 
how her endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her prospective clients, to impact the field or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
2 The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the 
national importance part. 
2 
I 
Finally, while she provided a business plan for the proposed company, the Petitioner did not present 
any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how her business plan's claimed revenue projections, even if credible or plausible, offers 
substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Although the business plan forecasts sales from 
$477K in year 1 to $3.834M in year 5, 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. Furthermore, the business plan 
claims the creation of 6 positions in year 1 to 48 positions in year 5. However, the Petitioner did not 
show that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to thel 
Florida region or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner, for instance, did not demonstrate 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 establish 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, as well 
as a review of the Petitioner's qualification for the underlying immigrant classification. 3 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 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. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad. 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
3