dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Immigration Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 14, 2024 In Re: 34828788 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an immigration document preparer and 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 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a waiver of the job offer requirement 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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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. 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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. 
TI. 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. The 
first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework requires the Petitioner to establish the proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. We agree with the Director that the 
submitted documentation establishes the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 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 previously stated that his company "would help 
immigrants who recently entered the country, as they do not know how to fill out the forms they need for 
the process they are about to apply for, or do not have the financial funds to cover the fees that an 
[i]mmigration [l]awyer might charge for his or her assistance. As a [l]egal [p]reparer, I would assist them 
in filling out each form, explaining each of the questions or items that must be answered, translating them, 
if necessary, and verifying that the applicant feels confident with what they are putting on the form, thus 
giving them the confidence that they are in control of their immigration process." He further mentioned 
that his company would provide limited non-legal assistance to primarily Spanish speakers; hire 
individuals to review forms; and establish alliances with non-profit organizations, insurance companies, 
tax companies, and immigration lawyers. 
In addition to the above statement, the Petitioner previously submitted immigration and government 
records, recommendation letters, education records, professional certificates, financial and company 
records, a resume, and articles on the economic potential of the United States and the economic impact 
of immigrants in the workforce 
The Director reviewed the record in finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the proposed 
endeavor has national importance. The Director mentioned the articles submitted by the Petitioner. 
However, the Director stated that the relevant issue is not the importance of the profession rather it is 
the proposed endeavor and its impact on the broader field. The Director next referenced the 
Petitioner's business plan which includes industry and market analyses, information about the 
company and its services, financial forecasts and projections, marketing strategies, a description of 
company personnel, and information on the Petitioner's education and work experience. The Director 
noted the staffing and revenue projections in the business plan, but that they were not supported with 
details showing their basis or an explanation as to how they would be realized. Additionally, the 
Director found that the record lacked sufficient evidence to show that the proposed endeavor would 
prospectively generate benefits that expand beyond the Petitioner's customers to have a national 
impact. The Director stated that the Petitioner did not provide evidence that the area the company 
would operate in is economically depressed, the proposed endeavor would influence his field, or his 
2 
methods are unique or better than those already found in the United States. The Director concluded 
by finding that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of the prospective endeavor's 
potential prospective impact, including broader implications, or national or global implications within 
the field; significant potential to employ U.S. workers; substantial economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed field; broad enhancement of societal welfare; or broad enhancement of 
cultural or artistic enrichment. Therefore, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish 
the proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits new evidence including business expansion plan documents, tax returns, 
a sales forecast, a profit and loss statement, future organizational charts, budget records, a job training 
proposal, information on community issues inl lwhere the company is located, and a professional 
development plan. He claims that his company will impact the U.S. economy by hiring U.S. workers. 
He asserts that the job training and development programs will foster a high-performing workforce and 
attract young adults from high-risk situations, thereby stimulating economic growth and improving 
community welfare. We note that the Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity 
to provide this evidence previously. Specifically, the Petitioner was issued a request for evidence 
(RFE). In the RFE, the Director discussed why the Petitioner did not establish that the proposed 
endeavor has national importance and provided a list of evidence that would establish it. We are not 
obligated to consider the new evidence for the first time on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l l) 
(requiring all requested evidence be submitted together at one time); Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 
764, 766 (BIA 1988) ( declining to consider new evidence submitted on appeal because "the petitioner 
was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the 
record before the denial"). 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision as it relates to prong one of the Dhanasar analysis 
regarding national importance. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also 
Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming 
the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted 
the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that 
appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized 
consideration" to the case). The Director reviewed evidence submitted by the Petitioner, discussed 
the evidentiary deficiencies in detail, and correctly analyzed the Petitioner's national importance 
claim. On appeal, the Petitioner has not overcome the findings made by the Director. Specifically, 
the Director found that the record lacked sufficient evidence to establish the claimed staffing and 
revenue projections in the business plan; that the proposed endeavor would prospectively generate 
benefits that expand beyond the Petitioner's customers to have a national impact; that the area the 
company would operate in is economically depressed; that the proposed endeavor has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers, otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects, or would 
influence his field; and that his methods are unique or better than those already found in the United 
States. The Director correctly concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor 
has national importance. 
The Petitioner has not established that he meets the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. Therefore, he 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 second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. See INS v. 
3 
Bagamasbad, 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4