dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Industrial Production Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 30, 2024 In Re: 32430126 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an industrial production manager and entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record establishes 
that the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability but does not establish that the 
Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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. 
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. 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree of expertise and will 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCIS has previously confinned the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United 
States. 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. 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,3 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Petitioner is an industrial manager and entrepreneur in the lighting fixture industry. The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability by meeting three of the 
six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F) The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner provided evidence of the following: an official academic record showing he has a degree 
in the area of exceptional ability, letters from employers evidencing ten years of full-time experience 
in the occupation, and proof of a license to practice the profession; meeting the criteria set forth in 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(C). After analyzing the evidence as it pertains to the criteria, the Director 
should have then provided a final merits determination, however this was not done. However, as the 
record does not otherwise establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner is eligible 
for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion, we will reserve the issue of the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the EB-2 classification. 4 
B. National Interest Waiver 
1. Substantial Merit 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor is to be the industrial production manager 
3 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 USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2 
of his own company that will manufacture and sell industrial, residential, and decorative lighting. The 
Petitioner asserts that his company will advance U.S. business, technology, and science. The record 
includes information on the manufacturing and wholesale industries in the United States. We conclude 
that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
2. National Importance 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof, instead 
imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applying the law. He asserts the Director did not give 
"due regard" to the evidence submitted, specifically: the resume outlining his experience; the business 
plan describing his credentials, expertise, and accomplishments; evidence of his work in the field; 
letters of recommendation; and industry reports and articles demonstrating the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor and the shortage of professionals in the field. Upon de novo review, we 
conclude that the Director properly analyzed the evidence to evaluate the Petitioner's eligibility by a 
preponderance of evidence and the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor satisfies 
the national importance element ofDhanasar's first prong, as discussed below. Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his 
proposed endeavor has the potential to significantly contribute to the U.S. economy through job 
creation and economic impact. The business plan projects that the proposed endeavor will create 43 
direct jobs by the company's 5th year of operation, along with earning $12.3 million in revenue in 
those first 5 years5. The jobs the proposed endeavor will create include full-time, part-time, and 
contractor jobs. He intends to establish his headquarters in California; in a HUBZone and then plans 
to expand his business to Florida and Massachusetts HUB Zones within the first five years of operation. 
Dhanasar states, "[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. Here, the record does not establish 
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 as the record does not establish 
his company's future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic 
benefits in California, Florida, and Massachusetts, or the United States. Specifically, the record does 
not support that the direct creation of 40 additional full-time jobs in this sector or the expected tax 
revenue generated by the company will have a substantial economic benefit commensurate with the 
national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
In addition, the record emphasizes that the Petitioner's business will be established in HUBZones, "[t]o 
generate jobs for U.S. workers in these underserved areas, while at the same time offering them 
opportunities to build up and expand their professional possibilities. This will improve wages and 
working conditions for American citizens and boost investment and economic development 
throughout such local communities." However, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that 
his business will be located in a HUBZone. Further, he did not indicate that his endeavor would 
participate in the HUBZone program or that it would be eligible to do so. While it appears that the 
5 We note the definitive statement asserts that the proposed endeavor will create 38 jobs, however we do not believe this 
contradiction changes the analysis. 
3 
Petitioner may have intended to equate a designated HUBZone with an "economically depressed 
area," the record does not support a conclusion that this is an equitable comparison. The Petitioner 
has not otherwise claimed or provided evidence that the area where his company will operate is 
economically depressed, that it 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, business activity, or related tax revenue. While his intentions are meritorious, the 
Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support these claims. The Petitioner's claims of 
his proposed endeavor's economic impact have not been established through independent and 
objective evidence. The Petitioner's statements are not sufficient to demonstrate his endeavor has the 
potential to provide these benefits to the United States. The Petitioner must support his assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor will, "[g]enerate substantial ripple effects upon 
key commercial and business activities.... " Dhanasar states that a proposed endeavor may have 
national importance because it has "national or even global implications within a particular field, such 
as certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 889. 
Here, the record does not specify any "ripple effects" that would be directly attributable to his endeavor 
or elaborate on how the endeavor will cause such effects, beyond operating as a business 
manufacturing lighting fixtures. The Petitioner contends in his definitive statement, "[ o ]ur services 
will improve efficiency and productivity for our clients, allowing them to reinvest savings in additional 
projects, creating innumerable direct and indirect jobs, resulting in a positive ripple effect on the U.S. 
economy." However, the record does not further detail how it will improve efficiencies and 
productivities and how its services will cause these ripple effects. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts his proposed endeavor will broadly impact the manufacturing 
industry. On appeal, he states this is "demonstrated by the submitted Industry Reports and Articles .. 
. given the significant impact of the role that manufacturing plays in modem economies." The 
Petitioner states that his work, "[ w Jill contribute access to innovation, new business practices, 
economic prosperity, and overall enhanced societal welfare; it will also generate American jobs, 
increase national and international integration and productivity, and enhance revenue for the U.S. 
economy at large." However, the record does not specify any innovation, new business practices, or 
enhanced societal welfare that would be directly attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner's intentions alone do not constitute evidence as a petitioner must support assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
For example, both the appeal and the expert opinion letter speak of the lighting industry going toward 
using more sustainable and recyclable materials. However, other than these statements, the record 
does not show that the Petitioner intends to specifically work with these materials or has contributed 
to the innovation or advancement of these methods, which may demonstrate a broader impact on the 
industry. Without evidence of a broader impact, the record demonstrates that the impact of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be limited to his direct clients and would therefore not rise 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Here too, his company may have an impact to his direct 
clients, however that does not constitute national importance as set forth in the Dhanasar framework. 
4 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that his proposed endeavor is of national importance because 
of the importance of entrepreneurship, immigrants, and small businesses to the economy of the United 
States. While we acknowledge their collective impact, this does not further a claim that the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor will have a broader impact to the field of manufacturing. The record also 
contains an expert opinion letter that speaks to the proposed endeavor's impact; however, it restates 
many of the same claims already addressed above, speaking broadly of the manufacturing industry, 
small businesses, and entrepreneurship. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, 
we have reviewed and considered the record in its entirety. As the Petitioner's proposed work does 
not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for 
a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility 
under the Dhanasar framework. See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 526 n.7. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
therefore conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner has not established that he 
is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5