dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: International Business And Trade

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 18, 2024 In Re: 30354578 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a trade specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as amember of the professions holding an advanced degree, as wel I as anational 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). 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 the Petitioner did not 
establish that he is eligible for or otherwise merits 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. 
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." 
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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver pet1t1ons. Dhanasar states USCIS may, as matter of 
discretion,1 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. 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The record supports that determination. However, the Director found the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The Director determined that while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit, he did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national 
importance, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. The Director further 
determined that the Petitioner did not establish that he is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, and 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. Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a waiver of the labor certification would be 
in the national interest.2 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance 
of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id.. 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as an independent consultant specializing in 
international business and trade. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor statement states: 
My proposal is to build on my extensive experience ... to develop and implement 
comprehensive and customized international business plans and international trade 
strategies for U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises (SM Es) in order to improve 
their profitability, competitiveness, and adaptability to global markets. 
Specifically, I will analyze global economic trends, examine the impact of 
international trade policies on businesses, explore new market entry strategies and 
factors that drive economic growth for SM Es. My work will result in expanding 
their sales abroad, diversifying their supply chain and achieving economic growth. 
In addition, as my work will contribute to optimize trade flows between the world 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
Circuit Court in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
and the United States, my work will enhance U.S. international competitiveness 
and contribute the [sic] U.S. economic development. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
Even though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Director determined the 
record did not establish the proposed endeavor has national importance. The Director found that the 
record does not show that the Petitioner working as an independent consultant specializing in 
international trade and business "stands to sufficiently affect or advance the field or industry more 
broadly . . . . Nor has the [P]etitioner sufficiently demonstrated the particular work he proposes to 
undertake offers original innovations that contribute to the advancements [sic] his field of endeavor, 
or otherwise has broader implications in his field." 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's decision "contains instances of a misunderstanding 
and misapplication of law that go beyond harmless error and reach the levels of abuse of discretion." 
Additionally, the Petitioner contends that he submitted "ample evidence across all filings that explains 
how his endeavor will impact [small and medium-sized companies] in order to improve their 
competitiveness, profitability, and adaptability to global markets." He argues that the evidence 
demonstrates "how [his] endeavor will impact small businesses in a matter that is beneficial to the 
overall economy." He further claims his proposed endeavor is of national importance "because it aims 
to support the economic recovery of the United States by developing novel and unique business 
strategies aimed at small and medium-sized companies ... with special emphasis on international 
trade." He notes that "[b]y strengthening their competitiveness and expanding their positioning in 
foreign markets, [the Petitioner] is indirectly contributing to strengthen and diversify U.S. supply 
chains." 
The Petitioner contends the Director did not fully examine and consider the totality of the evidence in 
in the request for evidence and in the denial decision amounting "to a critical error in the adjudicative 
process," citing Buletini v. INS, 850 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994). The court in Buletini did not 
reject the concept of examining the quality of the evidence presented to determine whether it 
establishes a petitioner's eligibility, nor does the Buletini decision suggest that USCIS abuses its 
discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. When USCIS 
provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be 
required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address 
every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 
2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir.1992); see also Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Atty. 
Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. U.S. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). 
We conclude that although the decision does not individually analyze each piece of evidence, it reflects 
the Director's reasoned consideration of the evidence, as discussed below. 
To determine whether the Petitioner has met his burden under the preponderance of the evidence 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N 
Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, we conclude that the Director, in evaluating whether the 
Petitioner had established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, weighed all the 
evidence but determined that the evidence overall lacked probative value. Upon de nova review, the 
3 
Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance element of 
Dhanasar's first prong. 
The Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor has national importance because it will contribute to 
the U.S. economy by providing individualized solutions and potential business opportunities to small 
and medium-sized businesses in their international trade and business endeavors. To support his 
statements, the Petitioner argues that he submitted industry and U.S. government source materials 
which provide "objective and probatory evidence" demonstrating "the national impact of his 
endeavor." He claims the industry articles and U.S. government reports show the importance of sel Ii ng 
products and services outside the United States to benefit U.S. wages and the economy. He points to 
U.S. government initiatives aimed at promoting small businesses, entrepreneurs, international trade, 
and improved supply chains. 
The Petitioner quotes the Director's request for evidence notice to argue that the Director requested 
the evidence he submitted to show his proposed endeavor's national importance. The Petitioner claims 
that he provided evidence showing his endeavor "impacts a matter that a government entity has 
described as having national importance or is subject [sic] of national initiatives." (emphasis omitted). 
The Petitioner contends that his reply to the request for evidence included "several government 
initiatives and regulations that target and further efforts that are tightly linked with the proposed 
undertaking." For instance, he submitted U.S. government initiatives emphasizing the need to 
revitalize the economy post-COVID-19 through job creation; supporting small and medium-sized 
businesses; exporting products and services; and enhancing production supply chains. He emphasizes 
that the articles "demonstrate an interest from the United States in harnessing the Petitioner's 
knowledge and expertise." In addition, he maintains that his "proposed endeavor will benefit small 
and medium sized businesses that are ... the backbone of the U.S. economy. By furthering these 
businesses, the Petitioner is directly contributing not only to their clients but also to the economic 
furthering of the Nation." 
The importance of the U.S. government initiatives is not in dispute, but their overall significance does 
not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular. International 
trade, strong supply chains, and support of small businesses are important to the U.S. economy, but it 
does not follow that one individual providing international trade and business consulting advice to 
small and medium-sized business clients has national importance. Merely working in an important 
field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus 
on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake" and consider the 
endeavor's "potential prospective impact." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. The 
Petitioner does not quantify the proposed endeavor's expected impact in the identified areas of 
concern, or provide objective, probative evidence to support his contentions. Although the Petitioner 
has shown that international trade and supporting small businesses are nationally important issues, he 
has not demonstrated the potential prospective impact of his specific endeavor to such nationally 
important matters. 
The Petitioner further takes issue with the Director's assessment of evidence. The Petitioner quotes 
the denial decision: "'Nor has the [P]etitioner sufficiently demonstrated the particular work he 
proposes to undertake offers original innovations that contribute to the advancements [sic] his field of 
endeavor . . . . . '" ( emphasis omitted). He argues this language is used for a different visa 
4 
classification, namely under the EB-1 visa classification for aliens of extraordinary ability and should 
not be applied to this petition. He contends the Director imposed "a higher standard oflaw not in line 
with the requested classification" which served to the direct disadvantage of the Petitioner and 
evidences the abuse of discretion inherent in the [request for evidence] and [d]enial." We disagree 
with the Petitioner that the Director imposed a higher standard of proof. 
As indicated by the Director, the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor has broader 
implications, either economically or from innovations that advance his field that would sufficiently 
extend beyond his independent contractor work and his clients to impact his field more broadly. The 
Petitioner's statement indicates he will provide "comprehensive and customized" international trade 
and business consulting advice to small and medium-sized businesses. But the Petitioner has not 
suggested or shown that his solutions or methodologies somehow differ from or improve upon those 
already available and in use in the United States, as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 889 (observing 
that "[aa]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even 
global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances"). The Petitioner must support his assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Outside of 
the Petitioner's general claims in his statements, the record does not suggest that the Petitioner working 
as an international business and trade consultant would impact the international trade and business 
field more broadly. Also, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support his claims 
that his business' activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to the United States. 
The Petitioner further argues the Director's decision had a "confusing assessment" by addressing a 
letter of intent in the analysis of Dhanasar's first prong. Instead of analyzing the letter in the 
determination of the national importance, he argues the letter is "suited for the well-positioned 
criterion." We acknowledge evidence from potential clients and persons of interest for the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor relates to Dhanasar 's second prong which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." Matter of Dhanasar at 889. However, given that much of the 
evidence submitted in support of Dhanasar's first prong addresses the industry or profession in which 
the Petitioner intends to work without discussing his specific proposed endeavor and its specific 
impact, the Director properly reviewed the totality of evidence on record, including the letter of intent 
to determine whether the endeavor has national importance due to its broad impact in the field. 
Furthermore, the Director did consider multiple letters of intent in the analysis of Dhanasar's second 
prong. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor extends beyond his work as an 
independent contractor and his future clients to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Beyond general assertions, 
he has not demonstrated that the work he proposes to undertake as an international trade and business 
consultant offers innovations that contribute to advancements in the international trade and business 
industry or otherwise has broader implications for his field. The economic benefits that the Petitioner 
claims depend on numerous factors, and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary 
tie between his proposed international trade and business consulting work and the claimed results. 
The documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, and 
5 
therefore he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the identified 
basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve his 
appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third 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 of 
L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework, he is not eligible for 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