dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Jewelry And Watch Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23372995 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 22, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a designer of jewelry and luxury watches, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 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 although the record 
established that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, he had not established 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203 (b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their 
equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, 
or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, 
cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an 
employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... the Attorney General may, when the 
Attorney General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the 
requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer in the 
United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a 
matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the 
noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the 
noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. Although the Director found substantial merit in the proposed endeavor, the Director 
concluded that the record did not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor has national importance. The 
Director also concluded the record did not satisfy the second and third Dhanasar prongs. For the 
reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of a job 
offer is warranted. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the 
specific endeavor that the noncitizen 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. 
Initially, the Petitioner described his experience and background in customizing jewelry and luxury 
watches, explaining that he was the managing partner of a jewelry company in Brazil and recently 
opened a sister company, M-T- Corp., in the United States. Regarding his proposed endeavor, he 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Dep 't of Transp., 
22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
stated that he would serve as the Production Manager and Lead Designer for M-T- Corp., and further 
stated: 
I expect to provide exclusive services within this growing industry. My goal is to create 
unique products crafted per the customer's instructions. I will give customers exactly 
what they want. They can literally come up with any design they wish, and I will make 
it happen. I will craft my customers' dreams. I also expect to launch a new brand of 
watches in the American market ... aimed to an exclusive audience in the US, Brazil, 
and Europe. 
He further indicated that in his role as production manager and lead designer for M-T- Corp., he would 
be responsible for the following: 
• Assessing customers ideas and trying to find balance between function, reliability, 
and aesthetics; 
• Once the design is specified, supervising the photoshop process to get a good visual 
impression of what the project will look like; 
• Organizing the work on the project and setting forth the procedures to be employed 
in accomplishing the project; 
• Assessing the project requirements; 
• Estimating, negotiating and agreeing budgets and timescales with clients and 
employees; 
• Ensuring that health and safety regulations are met; 
• Determining quality control standards; 
• Supervising the manufacturing process, renegotiating time scales or schedules as 
necessary; 
• Selecting, ordering and purchasing material; 
• Organizing training sessions as needed; 
• Creating jewelry from materials such as gold, silver, platinum, and pressure for 
semiprecious stones; 
• Selecting and acquiring metals and gems for designs; 
• Computing cost of labor and materials in order to determine production costs of 
products and articles; 
• Creating new jewelry designs and modifying existing designs, using computers as 
necessary; 
• Examining gemstone surfaces and internal structures to evaluate genuineness, 
quality and value, using polariscopes, refractometers, and other optical instruments; 
• Designing and fabricating molds, models, and machine accessories, and modifying 
hand tools used to cast metal and jewelry pieces; 
• Researching and analyzing reference materials and consulting with interested 
parties in order to develop new products or modify existing designs. 
The Petitioner claimed that his work has both substantial merit and national importance because the 
creation of jewelry and customization of watches is a unique art form that will benefit the nation and 
the cultural environment of its residents. Noting that the jewelry market is an ever growing market, 
the Petitioner claimed that his work in the field will "further propel its upward trajectory." 
3 
The Director issued a request for evidence, asking the petitioner to submit evidence demonstrating the 
endeavor's national importance. In response, the Petitioner provided an updated personal statement 
which repeated many of the claims set forth in his initial statement submitted in support of the petition. 
The Petitioner listed numerous individuals for whom he created custom jewelry and watches during 
the course of his career, again affirming that he customizes pieces according to each customer's needs. 
The Petitioner reiterated the duties he would perform in his position as production manager and lead 
designer for M-T- Corp., and noted that one of his goals was to "create employment in the United 
States, not only for myself but for US workers." He further stated that as the company recovers from 
the COVID-19 impact, it will continue expanding and will hire U.S. workers to fill its needs, noting 
that once the company grows "these workers individually benefit, but so will the United States 
economy, which will receive beneficial contributions in the form of taxes and increased market 
activity." 
The Petitioner also submitted letters of recommendation in support of his petition, and asserted that 
these and other letters previously submitted demonstrated the substantial merit and national 
importance of his proposed endeavor and his overall qualifications for a national interest waiver. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that although the proposed endeavor had substantial 
merit, the record did not establish the endeavor's national importance. The Director stated that the 
Petitioner had not provided supporting evidence showing that his undertaking "will have broader 
implications, or national or global implications" in his field. Additionally, the Director noted that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that his proposed work "has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers," offers "substantial positive economic effects," or "will broadly enhance cultural or artistic 
enrichment." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, the 
national importance of his work, and that the Director's decision was in error because it "applied a 
stricter standard of proof." With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must 
establish that he meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the 
evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I& N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that 
what he claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has 
met her burden under the preponderance standard, USCIS considers not only the quantity, but also the 
quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of 
E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
Upon review, we concur with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the 
national importance of his endeavor. Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his own company to impact the jewelry and luxury 
watch industries more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. As the Director 
observed, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, which entails working as the production manager and 
lead designer for a company he founded, benefits the company, its clients, and its customers. The 
record does not establish how the Petitioner and his company's operations will have "national or even 
global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. For example, 
while the Petitioner claims that his endeavor, which involves the creation of unique jewelry pieces and 
watch customization, will provide cultural enrichment, the record does not establish with specific data 
4 
or documentation how its jewelry production and sales, considered against the production and sales of 
similar jewelry companies, rises to the level of having national or global implications. See id. 
Moreover, rather than provide detailed information about how his specific proposed endeavor would 
have national importance, the Petitioner has provided general information about his occupation and the 
value of jewelry customization when considered as a form of art. At issue here is not the intrinsic 
importance or value of custom jewelry and watches, but rather the national importance of the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor. 
In addition, the Director noted in their decision that the Petitioner had not established that his proposed 
endeavor would have broader implications in his field, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, 
substantial positive economic effects, or would broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic 
enrichment. The Petitioner does not address on appeal how his establishment of a custom jewelry and 
watch company would have any of these impacts or otherwise be of national importance. Although the 
Petitioner highlighted that his endeavor would positively impact the economy, and asserted that his 
expertise in the field, as applied through his company, "will provide numerous benefits to the jewelry and 
watch market; to the arts sector; to the public in general; and to the US economy," the Petitioner has not 
offered sufficient evidence to corroborate these claims. 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, the record does not show how 
opening and operating a custom jewelry company stands to sufficiently extend beyond the Petitioner's 
own company and clientele to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Moreover, without sufficient information or evidence 
regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work on behalf 
of M-T- Corp., the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy 
resulting from the Petitioner's jewelry and watch customization would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
We also acknowledge the Petitioner's letters of recommendation, which commend the Petitioner's 
achievements and accomplishments in the industry and comment on his proposed endeavor. 3 For 
example,! I who owns a jewelry and watch company in Brazil, notes that the Petitioner's 
services are in high demand, particularly from professional soccer players in Brazil, due to the 
exceptional quality of his work accountant for the Petitioner's foreign company, 
commends the Petitioner's managerial and jewelry craftmanship skills. Although the writers praise 
the Petitioner's qualifications and commend his work, they do not explain how the Petitioner's specific 
endeavor will impact or benefit the industry. Therefore, the letters do not offer support for the 
conclusion that that the proposed endeavor has national importance. 
As discussed above, it is not apparent that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor activities would operate 
on such a scale as to rise to the level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor 
has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such 
claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. 
See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
3 While we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
For these reasons, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. Since the identified basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline 
to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not demonstrate his eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6