dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Interpretation And Translation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 11, 2024 In Re: 31304247 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an interpreter and translator, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 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 the Petitioner did not qualify 
for EB-2 classification and did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the 
labor certification, would be in the national interest. 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 qualify for 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. 
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 l&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, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an interpreter and translator who has worked in education and tourism. In her 
business plan, the Petitioner described her proposed endeavor as creating a company providing 
interpreting and translation services in English, Spanish and Portuguese to hospitals and clinics, 
insurance brokers, law offices, schools, and universities. The Petitioner stated her company would be 
based inl IMassachusetts and focus on business-to-business transactions. 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Director determined the Petitioner was not a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree because none of her diplomas were equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree and she did not 
demonstrate at least five years of progressive experience in her specialty. The Director also concluded 
the Petitioner was not an individual of exceptional ability as she did not meet at least three of the 
threshold regulatory criteria. 
As the Petitioner is not eligible for a national interest waiver for the reasons discussed below, we do 
not reach and hereby reserve determination of her eligibility for EB-2 classification. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
B. National Interest Waiver: Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong in the Dhanasar analytical framework for evaluating national interest waivers is 
substantial merit and national importance. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. This prong focuses on the 
specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Id. The endeavor's merit may be 
demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. We agree. 
The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed 
endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed 
area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within 
the field, or other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. The Director 
determined the Petitioner did not establish her proposed endeavor would impact her field, industry, or 
2 
the economy more broadly beyond her company's clientele at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims the Director focused on evidence she initially submitted and did not 
address the evidence she submitted in her RFE response. However, on page three of the Director's 
decision, they specifically acknowledged the Petitioner's RFE response and upon de novo review we 
have considered the entire record. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration of the petition, 
and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim a petitioner 
makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence a petitioner presents. See Amin v. 
Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383,394 (5th Cir. 2022); Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir. 1992); aff'd 
Morales v. INS, 208 F.3d 323,328 (1st Cir. 2000); see also Pakasi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 
2009); and Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009). 
The Petitioner further asserts her company "is vital for the country's economy and the security of 
business dealings of American companies." She claims her company would "play an important role 
in promoting accessibility, effective communication, inclusion, internationalization, and economic 
benefits for the U.S." The Petitioner does not specify how her company would accomplish these 
benefits through its work with individual entities. 
In her business plan, the Petitioner projected she would employ three individuals in the company's 
first year, four individuals in the second year, and five individuals in the third year. These projections 
do not indicate that the Petitioner's company has significant potential to employ U.S. workers and the 
record does not indicate thatl IMassachusetts or other areas the Petitioner hopes to expand her 
services to are economically depressed. In her business plan, the Petitioner also projected revenue of 
$58,080 in each area of her services in her company's first year increasing to $116,160 in the 
company's fifth year. The Petitioner did not show that such revenue is significantly higher than other 
companies in her field or would otherwise have a significant positive economic effect on a level of 
national importance. 
The Petitioner initially submitted letters from past employers and colleagues who praised her work as 
a language teacher but did not address her proposed endeavor. In response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted additional letters of support, four of which she again 
submits on appeal. Z-S-N- 2 states his belief the Petitioner will "make a big difference in the activities 
of interpreting and language translating in the USA." He does not address the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor in detail or discuss any broader implications it may have in her field. L-V-P-V- states she 
reviewed the Petitioner's business plan and believes the Petitioner's services "are of national relevance 
as they can move the American economy if we consider the benefits that these services will bring to 
various sectors such as tourism, business, education, health etc." She does not specify how the 
Petitioner's company will impact any of these sectors more broadly beyond the services she will 
provide to individual entities. 
F-F-S- expresses no doubt that the Petitioner's company "will be a great success" and that the 
Petitioner's characteristics and knowledge "will greatly contribute to the performance of American 
companies that need a bilingual professional to help them mitigate communication problems with 
2 We use initials to protect the privacy of individuals referenced in this decision. 
3 
foreigners." She does not discuss any specific broader implications the Petitioner's company would 
have in her field. M-A-S- states she reviewed the Petitioner's business plan and believes it will have 
national importance because it will "contribute to increasing the satisfaction of foreigners in visiting 
the United States, which will result in an increase in tourism and generate a series of benefits, both 
financial and for the American workforce." She does not specify how the Petitioner's services to 
individual entities through her company will result in these benefits. Cf Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
892 (stating Dhanasar submitted probative expert letters describing the importance of his specific 
research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests). 
The Petitioner also claims her proposed endeavor has national importance because her team "would 
move and flexibly work in different locations and ensure nationwide coverage." She states she hopes 
to expand her company's services throughout Massachusetts and into areas where the rates of 
foreigners are above average. The Petitioner does not explain, however, how such geographic 
expansion would have broader implications in her field. See id. at 889 ( explaining "we do not evaluate 
prospective impact solely in geographic terms" and instead, "we look for broader implications."). 
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. Id. at 893. Here, the 
Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond her 
potential clientele to impact her field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
In sum, the relevant evidence demonstrates the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed work in 
her field but does not establish the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor. 
Consequently, she does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
As this issue is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve 
determination of her eligibility under the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, she has not demonstrated that 
she is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4