dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Graphic Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 26, 2024 In Re: 29787271 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office 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 as an individual of exceptional ability, as 
well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 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 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. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. The matter is now before us on motion to 
reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Because the scope of a motion is limited to the 
prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), 
(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested 
benefit. 
In our decision dismissing the appeal, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did not meet the 
first prong of the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 
2016). We explained that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we "erred in not considering information about [the Petitioner's] 
current and prospective position to illustrate the capacity in which he intends to work." Our appellate 
decision, however, specifically considered the Petitioner's initial statement in the cover letter 
accompanying the petition, and the information in his "Personal Statement" and business plan for 
I offered in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). We determined the I 
I Petitioner had not shown that his proposed endeavor to offer graphic design services through! 
~stands to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients to impact his industry or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that we "applied a stricter standard of proof than permissible when 
evaluating the evidence of record." Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner 
must prove eligibility for the requested immigration benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the 
evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner's claim is "probably true." Id. at 376. Here, the Petitioner 
expresses disagreement with our analysis of his business plan and the "Expert Opinion Letter" from 
Dr. V-L-, but he does not explain how our specific conclusions applied a stricter standard of proof 
For example, regarding the Petitioner's business plan forl lwe have reviewed it and note 
that the job creation and revenue projections included therein are not supported by details showing 
their basis or an explanation of how those projections will be realized. Even if the Petitioner had 
established a sufficient basis for these projections, they would not establish the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor. While the sales forecast and projected income statement indicate that the 
Petitioner's company has growth potential, it does not demonstrate that it has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or would result substantial positive economic benefits to the regional or national 
economy. 
With respect to the "Expert Opinion Letter" from Dr. V-L-, we explained that his discussion relating 
to the importance of graphic designers, the graphic design industry, the remodeling and interior design 
industries, small businesses, and immigration was insufficient to demonstrate the national importance 
of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor of operating I I. Furthermore, we noted 
that Dr. V-L-' s letter did not explain how the Petitioner's graphic design services, through his business 
located in an undisclosed area in Florida, would have broader implications for our country. While the 
advisory opinion cites to industry-wide economic data, it does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's 
specific endeavor rises to a level of national importance. The letter from Dr. V-L- does not contain 
sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, 
to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work offers broader implications in his field, 
enhancements to societal welfare, or substantial positive economic effects for our nation that rise to 
the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner also asserts that we overlooked or did not properly consider "Probative Research" in 
support of his proposed endeavor. Our appellate decision, however, explained that the submitted 
articles discussing a wide range of topics covering graphic designer occupations, industry needs, visual 
learners, economic benefits, and design markets were insufficient to demonstrate the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. We stated that "the Petitioner must demonstrate 
the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor of providing his particular graphic design 
services through I I rather than the importance of graphic designers and related fields and 
industries." 
The Petitioner points to three articles, entitled "We are 90% Visual Beings," "U.S. National Design 
Policy Initiative," and "How Graphic Design Can Change the World." This evidence is relevant to 
the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor and we agree with the Director's determination that the 
2 
Petitioner meets this element of the first Dhanasar prong. In determining national importance, 
however, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry in which the individual will work; 
instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See 
Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential prospective impact 
of his specific proposed endeavor. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his undertaking stands to 
have a substantial economic impact or offers broader implications in the field of graphic design. 
The Petitioner further argues that we "erred in not considering precedent decisions," but he mentions 
only Dhanasa r.1 He states: "As in Matter ofDhanasar , [the Petitioner] submitted one (1) probative 
opinion letter from an expert holding a senior position in academia and industry describing the 
importance of his proposed endeavor and, more broadly, the benefits of his work for the United States. 
In addition, we submitted probative research to support [the Petitioner 's] claims." In Dhanasar, "[t]he 
petitioner submitted probative expert letters from individuals holding senior positions in academia, 
government, and industry that describe the importance of hypersonic propulsion research as it relates 
to U.S. strategic interests." Id. at 892. In addition, the petitioner "provided media articles and other 
evidence documenting the interest of the House Committee on Armed Services in the development of 
hypersonic technologies and discussing the potential significance of U.S. advances in this area of 
research and development." Id. Here, the Petitioner has not established that the facts of the instant 
petition are analogous to those in the Dhanasar precedent decision. For example, unlike the scientific 
researcher in Dhanasar, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor offers broader 
implications in the field. 
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. While the 
Petitioner 's statements reflect his intention to provide graphic interior design services to his company' s 
clients, he has n ot offered sufficient information and evidence to d emonstrate that the prospective 
impact of his proposed endeavor rises 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. Id. at 893 . Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not 
shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele 
to impact his industry, the field of graphic design, the U.S. economy, or U.S. societal welfare more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. Specifically, he has not demonstrated that his company's future staffing levels and 
business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States. While 
the Petitioner claims that his company has growth potential, he has not presented evidence indicating that 
the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, although the 
Petitioner asserts that his endeavor stands to create new jobs for U.S. workers, he has not offered 
sufficient evidence that his endeavor offers Florida or the United States a substantial economic benefit 
through employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity. 
1 Our appellate decision specifically considered the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
3 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that our appellate decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or users policy and that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the 
time of the decision. Because the Petitioner has not established that we erred as a matter of law or 
users policy in our decision, the motion will be dismissed. 8 e.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's 
appeal therefore remains dismissed, and his underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4