dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Interior Design And Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 12, 2023 In Re: 25679016 
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 and/or 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for and otherwise merited a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 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 United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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 
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) . 
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 a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. 
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 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 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. 
II. ELIGIBILITY FOR THE EB-2 CLASSIFICATION 
The Director concluded in his decision that the Petitioner is not eligible for a national interest waiver, 
since he did not meet any of the three prongs under the Dhanasar analytical framework. But the 
Director did not analyze whether the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 immigrant 
classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of 
exceptional ability. Instead, in the discussion of the third prong of the Dhanasar framework, he states 
only that "the petitioner has not established that he qualifies for the requested classification." Per the 
analysis below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established his eligibility for the underlying 
classification. 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The Petitioner submitted copies of his diploma and transcripts froml IUniversity which show 
that he earned a Bachelor of Arts with Honours degree in Business Studies in July 2008. The writer 
of an expert opinion letter opined that this program is "substantially similar to the required coursework 
leading to the completion of bachelor-level studies in the specialty of business studies from a 
regionally accredited university in the United States." However, he does address specific features of 
this program as noted on the transcripts, such as the "sandwich placement" in the second year and 
"repeating part time" in the fourth year. Because of the ambiguous and incomplete evidence regarding 
the Beneficiary's educational credentials, we reviewed the Electronic Database for Global Education 
(EDGE), an online resource that federal courts have found to be a reliable, peer-reviewed source of 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
3 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 discretionmy in nature). 
2 
foreign educational equivalencies. 4 EDGE states that a bachelor of arts, science, nursing, midwifery, 
engineering, education, or science in physiotherapy degree from the United Kingdom compares to a 
U.S. bachelor's degree. 
Turning to the required five years ofprogressive, post-degree experience in the specialty, the Petitioner 
referred to the five reference letters he submitted. As will be discussed below, these letters are from 
business partners and clients who generally describe their working relationships with the Petitioner, 
including specific projects. Evidence of qualifying experience must be in the form of letters from 
current of former employers and shall include the name, address and title of the writer and a specific 
description of the duties performed, but if that evidence is unavailable, other documentation will be 
considered. 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(l). While we recognize that the Petitioner has been self-employed 
for most of his career, the letters lack specific dates concerning the work done by or with the Petitioner, 
and the record also lacks supporting evidence of the ongoing nature of the Petitioner's business during 
this period, such as tax, financial and business registration records. We conclude that the evidence 
does not sufficiently establish that the Petitioner has at least five years of progressive, post-degree 
experience in his specialty, and therefore he does not qualify as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. 
B. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
The Petitioner alternately claimed to qualify for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional 
ability. While he claimed to meet all six of the evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), 
of which three must be met, he did not specify the evidence which supported his claims to each 
criterion. We have already acknowledged the Petitioner's possession of a degree which relates to his 
area of exceptional ability above, which satisfies the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). 
However, as discussed above, the reference letters do not show the dates of his employment or that it 
was full-time, and therefore he has not sufficiently established that he has at least ten years of full­
time experience as a CEO, sales director, or entrepreneur. 
In addition, the record does not include documentary evidence of the Petitioner's possession of a 
license or certification related to his occupation, membership in a professional association, or of his 
salary or other remuneration. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C), (D), and (E). And while the reference 
letters describe projects that the Petitioner has worked on in, such as interior design and importation 
of luxury furniture as discussed in greater detail below, they do not show recognition for achievement 
and significant contributions to the industry or field. The Petitioner has therefore not established that 
he meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria, and we need not conduct a final merits determination 
of whether he possesses a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in 
business. We conclude that he is not eligible as an individual of exceptional ability. 
4 EDGE was created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), a "non­
profit, voluntary, professional association of more than 11,000 higher education professionals who represent approximately 
2,600 institutions in more than 40 countries." See AACRAO, at www.aacrao.org/edge; see also. e.g.. Viraj. LLC v. US 
Att }' Gen., 578 Fed. Appx. 907, 910 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that USCIS may discount letters and evaluations that differ 
from reports in EDGE, which is "a respected source of information"). 
3 
I 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
The Petitioner is an entrepreneur in the area of interior design and furniture import and retail. He 
proposes to continue serving as owner, CEO and sales director of his business inl IFlorida,
ISpecifically, he states that he will build his existing business to provide services including 
real estate staging and interior design, and he intends to employ seven workers within five years. 
While the Petitioner has not established his eligibility for the underlying classification, we will also 
analyze whether he merits a national interest waiver of that classification's job offer requirement. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit, but he did not 
provide an analysis of the evidence supporting this conclusion. The Petitioner notes that his endeavor 
is in the fields of business and entrepreneurship, and evidence in the record shows its potential positive 
economic effects. As such we agree with the Director. 
As for the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the Director mainly focused on 
the Petitioner's business plan for I I noting that he expects his business to employ seven workers 
within five years and generate annual revenues of nearly $2 million within the same period. However, 
he concluded that this evidence does not show that the proposed endeavor would have broader 
implications for the overall field beyond that of the Petitioner's company, or that the job creation laid 
out in the business plan would have the potential to provide substantial positive economic effects to 
the region or nation. 5 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that contrary to the language in the Director's decision, the Dhanasar 
precedent decision does not require him to show both a significant potential to employ U.S. workers 
and potentially substantial positive economic effects in order to establish the national importance of 
his proposed endeavor, but only one of those. This is a misreading of Dhanasar, as the significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers is given as one example of a substantial positive economic effect 
that may show national importance. In addition, the Petitioner asserts that since there is no threshold 
number of workers employed or tax revenue generated that is identified in Dhanasar which would be 
considered "significant" or "substantial," the Director was obligated to find national importance if the 
proposed endeavor has the potential to positively impact an interest that is of inherent importance to 
the area or nation. This interpretation is also not supported by the plain language of our precedent 
decision. 
5 The Director also included a paragraph at the end of his discussion of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework which 
indicates that the Petitioner did not sufficiently describe his proposed endeavor. As the record includes ample detail 
regarding the proposed endeavor, including the business plan mentioned in the decision, we withdraw this portion of the 
Director's decision. 
4 
Our decision in Dhanasar provides examples of how a proposed endeavor can be considered to be of 
national interest, and is clear that this is not evaluated solely in geographic terms. But whether the 
potential prospective impact comes from national implications for an entire field or industry, or from 
a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects, 
Dhanasar states that we look for broader im[licatior. Here, the Petitioner has stated that he will 
continue to build his existing business in the Florida area by providing interior design, real 
estate staging, and furniture import and retail services, and that his business will potentially employ 
seven workers within five years. He asserted that this endeavor will be of national importance 
"because its implications and benefits will be felt not only by his current clients in the Americas and 
Europe, but by other collateral businesses across the United States ... as it "will directly require the 
use and employment of various supporting businesses." 
The record shows that the Petitioner exclusively imports ( and plans to continue to import) furniture 
from Europe, and therefore does not support his assertion that his proposed endeavor would be of 
importance to the United States in terms of its impact on manufacturing and production of raw 
materials. In addition, while he also asserted that his proposed endeavor would have a positive impact 
on shipping and warehousing businesses, and submitted reports sr~wing re volume and value of 
shipping inl Iairports and ports, the record does not show that ould potentially have a 
measurable impact on employment or revenue in these sectors in the area. 
Other evidence relating to direct and indirect employment includes the Petitioner's business plan, 
which in addition to the direct employment of seven workers including the Petitioner, projects the 
indirect employment of an attorney, CPA, marketing specialist, and unidentified positions at banks 
and other financial institutions. But this evidence does not show that the direct employment of six 
individuals other than the Petitioner and the business generated ~or supplrting companies and their 
employees would have a substantial positive economic effect in th area such that the proposed 
endeavor would have a broader impact. 
The Petitioner also stresses on appeal that the Director's decision does not address the expert opinion 
letter that he submitted, and argues that this evidence, together with the client letters, show why his 
proposed endeavor is of national importance. In discussing the national importance of the Petitioner's 
endeavor, the expert opinion letter cites to broad statistics concerning international trade, 
entrepreneurship, small businesses in the United States, and the furniture and interior design industries 
in general. But it bears repeating that the focus of the first prong in the Dhanasar analytical framework 
is a petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, not the broader industries or fields in which they work. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. At no point does the letter discuss the national importance of the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor as the owner of a business engaged in interior design and 
furniture import and retail. 
As additional evidence submitted in support of the national importance of his proposed endeavor, 
several current and former clients of the Petitioner wrote reference letters which mainly discuss their 
ongoing business relationship with him. 6 For instance, the co-founder and principal of Turkish 
furniture producer I I describes his own business and his business relationship with the 
Petitioner, noting that he has exclusive rights to sell their furniture in Florida. While he also stresses 
6 All of the reference letters in the record have been reviewed, including those not specifically mentioned in this decision. 
5 
the importance of this relationship to his company and its prospects, the letter does not expand upon 
the importance of the Petitioner's endeavor to the U.S. economy or workforce. 
Similarly J Ithe owner of a design firm, describes projects in which he collaborated with 
the Petitioner, and asserts that the continuation of the Petitioner's business is critical to countless other 
designers in the U.S., as well as to furniture manufacturers in Europe. He also states that the 
Petitioner's endeavor supports "thousands if not millions of dollars in trade between the U.S. and 
Europe," and that he has discussed a joint venture business with the Petitioner. However, the record 
lacks documentation to support these assertions regarding the potential economic impact of the 
Petitioner's endeavor. 
Other reference letters in the record similarly describe projects in which the writer has worked with 
the Petitioner. Although these letters help to document the Petitioner's expertise and reputation within 
his field, they do not, individually or collectively, establish that the potential economic contribution 
of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 
For all of the reasons given above, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
is of national importance, and therefore does not show that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a 
model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the 
interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Id. at 890. 
The Director concluded that the evidence does not show that the Petitioner has a record of success as 
an entrepreneur/CEO/interior designer, or that the evidence shows interest in his endeavor from 
relevant parties and progress towards achieving the goals of his proposed endeavor. On appeal, the 
Petitioner argues that the Director's decision lacks an analysis of the reference letters, business plan 
and other materials submitted. He also notes that not all of the factors listed above need be met for a 
petitioner to show that they are well positioned to advance their endeavor. 
The record shows that the Petitioner has relevant education relating to his field of endeavor, and has 
years of experience in managing a business. The evidence also shows that he has operated! I 
for several years, and during that time he has completed projects and established business contacts in 
his industry. For example, the letter froml !details several interior design projects in which 
he collaborated with the Petitioner, and describes his reliance on the Petitioner's connections with 
European furniture manufacturers. Another letter from I l managing director of a luxury 
furniture design company, describes his working relationship with the Petitioner and several 
commercial projects in which the Petitioner coordinated furniture orders between the client and 
manufacturer. These letters show that the Petitioner has the necessary expertise to advance his 
proposed endeavor. 
6 
Other considerations relate specifically to entrepreneurs such as the Petitioner seeking a national 
interest waiver. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. One of these highlighted by the Petitioner on appeal is published materials about the 
petitioner and their business which shows significant attention or recognition by the media. The 
evidence includes a paragraph in the.__ ____________ __.describingl land the 
furniture it sells, as well as evidence regarding the prestige of these travel guides. While the Petitioner 
asserts that this paragraph appeared in the 2015 and 2019 editions of the guide, the evidence shows 
only the 2019 edition. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted an interview of him that appeared in South Florida Business & 
Wealth magazine (SFBW) inl l2021in which he discusses his.__ _________ ___. 
c=]after personal and business setbacks. The magazine describes itself on its website as "South 
Florida's premiere business and lifestyle magazine," but no independent documentary evidence was 
submitted regarding SFBW's reputation. 
We note that the record lacks any documentation ofl !financial or job creation history such as 
tax returns, audited financial statements, or any other tax or financial evidence. There is also no 
independent, documentary evidence to support the Petitioner's claims of his investment inl Ior 
that of other business partners or investors. However, the reference letters and media described above 
establish his reputation and connections within the luxury furniture industry, and together with the 
evidence of his experience as a business manager and entrepreneur show that he is sufficiently well­
positioned to advance his endeavor. We therefore disagree with the Director and conclude that the 
Petitioner meets the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
C. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial 
The third prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In performing 
this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the individual's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer 
or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are 
available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national 
interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. 
In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish that on balance, it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
As a petitioner must meet all three prongs of the framework to be eligible for a national interest waiver, 
we reserve our evaluation of whether, on balance, it would be in the national interest to waive the EB-
2 classification's job offer requirement. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding it 
unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the 
appeal); see also Matter of D-L-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 568, 576-77 n.10 (BIA 2022) ( declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
7 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established his eligibility for the EB-2 classification as either an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability. In addition, while we disagree with the 
Director regarding the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not shown that his 
proposed endeavor is of national importance, and he is therefore not eligible for a national interest 
watver. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8