dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Hydraulic Equipment Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUNE 15, 2023 In Re: 27437780 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he 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. 
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. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first 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. 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 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 the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature) . 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner indicated that he intends to work as entrepreneur 
"in the segment of distribution of hydraulic equipment, specifically valves and connections for the control 
and handling of fluids, such as water, oil, steam, gas, sewage, etc." In his "Professional Plan," the 
Petitioner stated that he plans to expand his "company, L-C-V-C- LTDA- already in full operation and 
development in Brazil," in the United States. 2 He further asserted that his "basic proposal is to develop 
a partnership with G- S.A., a company in Spain, which has a complete line ofhigh-quality products, aimed 
at fluid control."3 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted two business plans for his proposed U.S. company. These business 
plans include industry and market analyses, information about the Petitioner's company and its 
services, financial forecasts and projections, expansion predictions, a discussion of his work 
experience, and a description of company personnel. Regarding future staffing, the Petitioner's two 
business plans anticipate that his company will employ 24 personnel in year one, 39 in year two, 66 in 
year three, 114 in year four, and 146 in year five, but he did not elaborate on these projections or provide 
evidence supporting the need for these additional employees. In addition, while his plans offer sales 
projections of $1,384,865 in year one, $2,250,405 in year two, $3,785,296 in year three, $6,603,496 
in year four, and $8,448,597 in year five, he did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were 
calculated. 
The record includes information about the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal, the Biden Administration's plan to revitalize American manufacturing 
and secure critical supply chains, and construction material shortages and their effect on real estate 
development. In addition, the Petitioner provided articles discussing trends in hydraulic tube 
production during times of supply shortages; supply chain issues affecting the North American pipe, 
valve, and fitting (PVF) industry; the engineering and construction industry outlook; and the state of 
the commercial PVF market. The record therefore demonstrates that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided letters of support from R-R-, G-S-A-, J-T-, and W-S- discussing 
his business development and hydraulics equipment distribution capabilities and experience. The 
Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the 
2 The record includes the State of Florida business registration for L- LLC. 
3 The Petitioner provided an April 2021 letter from the Export Manager at G- S.A. asserting that the company has "come 
into an agreement with [the Petitioner] to become our sole distributor for the Florida State. As soon as [the Petitioner] has 
set up his company in the U.S .. this agreement will be fully deployed between his company and G- S.A." 
2 
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 he proposes to undertake has national 
importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 
The Petitioner also submitted an "Expert Opinion Letter" from H-D-P-, an associate professor at U­
T-D-, in support of his national interest waiver. H-D-P- contends that the Petitioner's proposed work 
is of national importance because his company stands to provide useful products for water 
infrastructure; encourage international trade and business relations; and support the U.S. economy, 
businesses, and job market. The letter from H-D-P-, however, does not contain sufficient information 
and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the 
Petitioner's specific proposed work operating a hydraulic equipment distribution company offers 
broader implications in his field or substantial positive economic effects for our nation that rise to the 
level of national importance. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that his undertaking has national or global implications within a particular field or industry. 
The Director also indicated the Petitioner had not shown that his proposed work "has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that his undertaking "will provide the United States infrastructure segment 
with cost-effective and critical supplies for fluid control, and, therefore, contribute to the U.S. economic 
growth with the distribution of materials to backbone industries" and through "generation of jobs and 
income." He asserts that his company stands to offer "an effective way for maintaining the supply chain 
in hydraulic and fluid control equipment and to avoid greater negative impacts on the economy due to the 
shortage of materials, as it will act as a supply hub to import critical equipment and components to the 
United States." In addition, the Petitioner claims that "his company will help foreign companies that want 
to initiate activities in the U.S. territory with focus on strategic industries such as water, mining, and oil 
& gas. The endeavor will develop critical components manufacturing supply chain in the U.S. territory." 
He also contends that his company will help maintain "the supply and distribution chain that has been 
disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic." 
Additionally, the Petitioner argues that he plans to expand his company's "activities in three states ... 
until reaching national growth" and that his company is "committed to impacting economically distressed 
areas." He further asserts that his company will hire in-house employees and contribute to the generation 
of indirect jobs in the industry. The Petitioner also indicates that his company stands to have a "direct 
impact in the community" through payment of taxes. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession 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. In Dhanasar, we 
further 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 
3 
economically depressed area, for instance , may well be understood to have national importance ." Id. 
at 890. 
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. Whil e the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to develop and operat e his hydraulic equipment distribution 
company , he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demon strate that the prospect ive 
impact of his propo sed 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 compan y's busin ess 
operation s to impact his industry or the U.S. econom y 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 has asserted that his endeavor will "employ U.S. workers," he has not offered sufficient 
evidence that the area where his company will operate is economically depressed , that he would 
employ a significant population of workers in that area, or that his endeavor would offer the region or 
its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels , tax revenue , or business 
activity. 
For the aforementioned reasons , the Petition er's propo sed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding 
his eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar . See INS v. Bagama sbad, 429 U.S . 24, 25 
(1976) ("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 ofL-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 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite 
first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established he 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. 
4