dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 5, 2024 In Re: 30185348 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this 
EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus 
of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualifies as an advanced degree professional, the record did not establish that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement is 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 Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 immigrant 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, the petitioner must then establish eligibility for a 
discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of 
the Act. While neither 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 USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, 1 grant a national 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
the Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is 
discretionary in nature). 
I 
and national importance; 2) the individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
3) on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional, based upon his master's of business administration degree from I I in 
IOhio. Regarding the Petitioner's request for a national interest waiver, the Director found that 
the Petitioner established only the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, and did not establish its 
national importance, that he is well-positioned to advance it, or that, on balance, waiving the job offer 
requirement would benefit the United States. The Petitioner proposes to establish an information 
technology (IT) consulting business based in Florida. The Petitioner states that the company will focus 
on strategic consulting in integrated management systems and related software. 
In determining that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, 
the Director concluded that the record does not support the Petitioner's assertion that the proposed 
endeavor will contribute to the overall U.S. economy and generate both taxes and new jobs. The 
Director discussed the business plan and concluded that it does not demonstrate that the potential 
staffing levels, business activity, and related tax revenue stand to provide substantial economic 
benefits for Florida or the United States. The Director also found that the record does not contain 
sufficient evidence to establish that the business will operate in an area that is economically depressed. 
Finally, the Director concluded that the reports and articles submitted relate to the importance of the 
industry, rather than establishing the importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not sufficiently consider the evidence in the 
record. The Petitioner asserts that the evidence demonstrates that the business will be established in 
an economically depressed area, that it will generate jobs for U.S. workers, and that his past work has 
positioned him well to advance his endeavor. 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national or global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances, may have national importance. Id. Additionally, an endeavor that is 
regionally focused may nevertheless have national importance, such as an endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
Regarding the national importance of the endeavor, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the company 
will operate in locations that are recognized as "historically underutilized business zones" and should 
therefore be considered economically depressed areas as contemplated by Matter ofDhanasar. The 
Petitioner also notes that the business plan estimates that the company will create 43 foll-time jobs 
and earn approximately $25 million in gross revenue in the first five years. The Petitioner claims that 
this number of jobs and amount of revenue is significant enough to impact U.S. employment levels, 
business activity, and related tax revenue in those areas, and therefore rises to the level of national 
importance. 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director that the record does not demonstrate the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. Although the Petitioner asserts that the potential jobs and 
2 
revenue projected by the business plan rise to the level of national importance, we conclude that the 
plan does not sufficiently explain the basis for the stated projections. The business plan states that the 
Petitioner "has set high objectives" for the company and that its goal is to "deliver 135,000 hours of 
[c]onsultancy [s]ervices and 730 projects" within 5 years. The stated gross revenue projections, which 
are $345,000 in year 1 and $13.9 million by year 5, are based upon meeting this goal. But the plan 
does not explain how this goal was determined, how it will be achieved, or why it is a realistic one for 
the company's initial projected business activity. As to the projected 43 jobs that will be created, the 
plan similarly does not explain how this number was reached or estimated. Other than stating that the 
"revenue and cost estimates are based on the planned organic growth" of the company, the plan does 
not provide support for the stated financial projections. 
Without further explanation as to the basis for these projections, we cannot assess whether the stated 
revenue estimates and job creation numbers are credible, and we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
met his burden to establish that his proposed endeavor stands to have "substantial positive economic 
effects" that would be commensurate with national importance. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
890. Even if we were to assume that the job creation and revenue projections are credible, which we 
do not, the record also does not establish that the creation of 43 jobs in 5 years, even in an economically 
depressed area, has the potential for broad implications that would rise to the level of national 
importance. See id. at 889. The Petitioner did not provide evidence to establish that the potential 
benefit to the economy from this business will rise to the level of substantial positive economic effects 
required to establish national importance. Id. 
Although the record reflects the Petitioner's experience in the field and his intention to provide 
valuable services to his clients, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information or evidence to 
demonstrate that the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. The Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond his company and its clientele to impact the IT consulting industry or the U.S. economy at a 
level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by 
the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We acknowledge 
the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to the second and third prongs of Dhanasar but, having found 
that the evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as to national importance, we reserve 
our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the remaining Dhanasar prongs. 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 of L-A-C-, 
26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3