dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Industrial Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 16, 2024 In Re: 31456245 
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 an 
advanced degree professional, 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 she 
is an advanced degree professional but did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus that the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 1 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 afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/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 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. An 
advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
1 The Director incorrectly stated the Petitioner's degree was found to be the U.S. equivalent of a degree in accounting. In 
fact, the Petitioner's evidence established her degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor 's in industrial engineering . Because 
we agree with the Director 's conclusion that she is eligible for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional , we 
will not remand the matter for this misstatement. 
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 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner demonstrates that: 
• 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. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
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 and its "potential prospective impact." Id. at 889. The 
endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, 
science, technology, culture, health, or education. The term "endeavor" is more specific than the 
general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation normally 
involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that 
occupation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
For example, while engineering is an occupation, the explanation of the proposed endeavor should 
describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of engineering in which the person will work, 
rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of an engineer. Id. As such, we will first 
identify the Petitioner's endeavor as shown in the record. Then, we will evaluate the Petitioner's 
evidence in support of the endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. 
The Petitioner has established ______ (the Company), in Florida, for which she will serve 
as "Chief Executive Officer" and "Manager." The goal of the Company is to offer affordable and 
sustainable packaging solutions to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the United States. The 
Company will support SMEs and entrepreneurs new to a market and with limited resources by 
providing low purchase volumes and assistance with "product positioning" to enable successful 
product launches and business growth. Additionally, the endeavor aims to manufacture and export 
packaging products from the United States to reduce reliance on imported packaging products. The 
Company will manufacture "reusable bags that can be repurposed as attractive and practical cases or 
bags" to support environmental, sustainability efforts. The Company will invest in machinery and 
skilled personnel to "produce quality products and will establish a sales team and a packaging division 
to cater to its own needs as well as those of external customers." The Company will have six sectors: 
sales, manufacturing, packaging, design, international trade, and research and development. 
The Director determined the Petitioner's endeavor does not have substantial merit however no analysis 
was provided to explain why they reached that conclusion. Based on the evidence of record, 
particularly the Petitioner's articulation of her endeavor as well as the multitude of documents she 
provided to establish the importance of: the fields of industrial engineering, eco-friendly packaging 
2 
solutions, small businesses and entrepreneurship, biotechnology, innovation in plastics and 
biomanufacturing, and recycling, we disagree and conclude her endeavor has substantial merit. 
Because the endeavor has substantial merit, we turn to whether the proposed endeavor is of national 
importance, under the standard set forth in Dhanasar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief in which she advances several arguments. First, she generally 
contends the Director's decision includes misunderstandings and misapplications of the law that go 
beyond harmless error to reach the level of abuse of discretion. Specifically, the Petitioner points out 
that the Director's conclusion that "the self-petitioner should offer details not only as to what the 
occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically 
within that occupation" ignores the multiple statements provided by the Petitioner in the initial petition 
and in her response to the Director's request for additional evidence (RFE). We agree with the 
Petitioner as it relates to the Director's lack of analysis of the endeavor's substantial merit. Therefore, 
we withdraw the Director's determination and conclude, as stated above, that her endeavor has 
substantial merit. However, upon de novo review, and for the reasons stated below, the totality of the 
evidence does not establish the Petitioner's endeavor is of national importance. 
Second, the Petitioner asserts the Director disregarded some of the evidence she submitted in her RFE 
response, particularly her "well-defined proposed endeavor submitted ... as well as the substantial 
supporting evidence from reputable, objective sources speaking to the importance of the Petitioner's 
endeavor to the field and nation as a whole." Here, she emphasizes that her endeavor includes reducing 
the environmental impact of SMEs by "implementing innovative and sustainable packaging solutions 
tailored to their individualized needs and ultimately reducing their resource usage." She further 
emphasizes her endeavor will utilize "new bioplastic materials with high biological content," and will 
collaborate with others in the field to reduce the carbon footprint in those materials coming from 
petroleum, and the environmental impact of packaging. She also continues to assert that her endeavor 
will lead to successful product launches and sustained growth by providing flexible purchasing options 
and strategic product positioning, which will help businesses thrive and survive. She maintains that 
her plan to manufacture and export packaging products will reduce U.S. dependence on imported 
packaging materials and because of her commitment to using sustainable materials also aligns with 
our government's sustainability goals to minimize the environmental impact of packaging. Finally, 
she contends this will democratize access to high-quality packaging. Again, we agree that the 
Petitioner's description of her endeavor ( along with the submitted reports and articles) are sufficient 
to establish it is of substantial merit. However, apart from her assertions, as the Director correctly 
noted, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was not supported by independent and objective evidence 
to establish its national importance. 
Third, the Petitioner asserts the Director failed to analyze all the evidence to her detriment and cites 
to Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1233 (ED Mi. 1994) for the proposition that failure to consider 
all the relevant evidence submitted by a plaintiff constitutes abuse of discretion. While we agree with 
the Petitioner's contention as it relates to the Director's analysis of the proposed endeavor's substantial 
merit, we do not find the court's decision in Buletini supports that the Director's analysis of her 
endeavor's national importance is reversible error. The Director correctly noted the Petitioner 
"repeatedly relies upon arguments related to the importance of the field, rather than the importance of 
the proposed endeavor." As such, the Petitioner's reliance on Buletini is not sufficient to overcome 
the record's shortcomings and she has not established the Director abused their discretion by not 
3 
providing individualized analysis of each piece of evidence. In fact, courts have held that if USCIS 
provides a reasoned consideration of a petition, it will not be required to specifically address each 
claim a petitioner makes or address every piece of evidence a petitioner presents. See Ren v. USCIS, 
60 F.4th 89, 97 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating "[S]o long as [USCIS] has given reasoned consideration to the 
petition, and made adequate findings, we will not require that it address specifically each claim the 
petitioner made or each piece of evidence the petitioner presented."); and see Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 
F.2d 1136, 1142-43 (5th Cir. l 984)(stating "[The Board oflmmigration Appeals] has no duty to write 
an exegesis on every contention"). Here, the Director's analysis of the endeavor's national importance 
was admittedly sparing, yet it correctly noted that we must consider the endeavor's "potential 
prospective impact" and that it is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the 
Petitioner will work, but the specific endeavor the individual proposes to undertake that establishes its 
national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Fourth, the Petitioner highlights the packaging industry's impact on our economy, asserting that it 
contributes $537.91 billion to the U.S. economy, which is equivalent to 2.5% of our gross domestic 
product. Further, she highlights that 489,440 individuals are employed in this industry, with an 
additional 540,554 jobs created by "suppliers who provide various products and services to the 
packaging industry." Finally, she explains that the industry generates an additional 659,817 jobs 
through the induced impact of its economic contribution. The Petitioner's sources relating the value 
of the packaging industry supports our conclusion that her endeavor has substantial merit, however, 
they do not establish her endeavor's national importance. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
3 75-76 (standing for the proposition that assertions must be supported with relevant, credible, and 
probative evidence). We again reiterate that under the proper Dhanasar standard, it is not the 
importance of the field, industry, or profession that establishes an endeavor's national importance, but 
the "potential prospective impact," of the endeavor itself. For example, were the Petitioner's endeavor 
to create 540,554 jobs, she would likely have established its national importance under Dhanasar, 
however here, the Petitioner's evidence relates to the field in which she will work, and not the 
prospective impact of her endeavor, which is why her assertions and the evidence submitted to support 
them are insufficient to establish her burden. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
The Petitioner next asserts that the Director failed to consider that Florida, where the Company is 
located, was chosen for this endeavor because all its counties have a strong commitment to the internal 
revenue service's (IRS) Opportunity Zone program, and her endeavor will contribute to the economic 
revitalization of the state, which aligns with Florida's economic objectives. The Petitioner's 
contention lacks persuasion however because the Company does not have a physical location, thus the 
Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to establish her business will have the impact she 
describes. Id. The documents provided to establish the Petitioner incorporated the Company in 
Florida do not include a lease agreement for the property listed on the incorporation and IRS 
documentation. Furthermore, the registered agent _______ which is listed on the 
Company's electronic articles of organization, appears to be physically located at the address the 
Petitioner uses for the Company's Florida and IRS documentation. Given the Petitioner does not 
provide any evidence to establish its actual location (i.e. a lease agreement), a preponderance of the 
evidence supports the conclusion that the Company's registered agent conducts business using that 
address, but not the Company. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. This further 
undermines the Petitioner's assertions that she will operate in a Florida Opportunity Zone and help the 
state's revitalization. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988) (standing for the 
4 
proposition that any inconsistencies in a petitioner's evidence may lead to reevaluation of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition.) 
The Petitioner cites to Love Korean Church v. Chertojf, 549 F 3d 7 49 (9th Cir 2008), for the 
proposition that imposing a novel criterion not mandated by Dhanasar is an abuse of discretion. 
Specifically, the Petitioner contends that Dhanasar does not require an impact of national scale, in 
geographic terms, and that the Director's "assertion that the record does not detail how the endeavor's 
impact would operate on such a large scale as to rise to the level of national importance and benefit 
the national economy lacks basis" is legal error. We agree with the Petitioner's general contention 
that there is no requirement under Dhanasar for an endeavor to touch the national economy to establish 
its national importance. However, the Director's analysis not only did not require a "large scale" 
impact, and nowhere in the decision is this language found but furthermore, the decision's analysis 
correctly noted that the Petitioner's evidence failed to establish the endeavor's national importance, 
instead relying on the importance of the field. The Director also noted the lack of evidence to establish 
the broader, prospective impacts (economic, cultural, social) attributable to the Company, which is the 
Petitioner's burden. See Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
The Petitioner also contends that employing people is not inherently necessary to meet Dhanasar 's 
national importance standard. Again, while we agree with the Petitioner's contention, the Director's 
decision did not state that Dhanasar mandates employing people to establish the national importance 
of an endeavor. We note the Director correctly cited to Dhanasar's language holding 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. Additionally, the Petitioner herself makes several assertions 
related to her endeavor's importance because it will boost the economy, and support SMEs. While 
the assertions support the endeavor's substantial merit, they do not support its national importance 
without evidence to establish the Company's actual prospective economic impacts (which could 
include employing individuals but does not have to). See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-
76. 
Several times in her appeal brief, the Petitioner mentions her national importance statement to 
highlight the most relevant evidence the Director failed to consider. This document reviews her work 
experience, discusses the growth of the global bioplastic packaging market, discusses her reasons for 
choosing Florida to establish the Company, and ends with a few sentences under the subheading 
"HOW WE WILL DO IT" (meaning carry out the Company's goals). The assertions found in this 
document have been considered, however they are insufficient to establish her burden by a 
preponderance of the evidence, because they are not supported by independent, objective evidence. 
See id. Furthermore, the evidence of the Petitioner's educational and work experience background as 
well as the letters of interest from potential clients and customers relate to the second prong of 
Dhanasar 's analytical framework, where we consider whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to 
advance her proposed endeavor. Id. at 890. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's evidence relating to the importance of STEM fields and our 
government's initiatives aimed at attracting STEM talent, however these documents support the 
endeavor's substantial merit but not its national importance. Id. at 889. For example, in Dhanasar, 
we determined that while proposed classroom teaching activities in STEM may have substantial merit 
5 
in relation to U.S. educational interests, such activities, by themselves, generally are not indicative of 
an impact in the field of STEM education more broadly, and therefore generally would not establish 
their national importance. Id. at 893. Similarly, here, while the services the Petitioner intends to offer 
to her clients may be highly beneficial to them, this is not indicative of a broader impact on the field 
of industrial engineering, eco-friendly packaging, recycling, product placement, or bio-plastics, in 
general. In sum, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not shown that the implications of 
her endeavor go beyond any individual client to which the Company provides services at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
B. Dhanasar 's Second and Third Prongs 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve her arguments regarding her eligibility under the second and third Dhanasar 
prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting 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 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, she has 
not established she 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6