dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Language Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 9, 2024 In Re: 30627502 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for 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 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, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
1 See also 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
I 
II. ANALYSIS 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. With her initial 
evidence, the Petitioner stated that she would "continue working in her field of endeavor inl 
and adjacent areas in Florida, promoting the knowledge and practice of the Portuguese language as a 
way of strengthening relations between companies, schools, hospitals and other branches of services 
and consumers." In response to a request for evidence (RFE) issued by the Director, the Petitioner 
submitted a business plan in which she indicated that her "original idea was teaching one language, 
namely, Portuguese. However, the entire country will be more effectively served by expanding and 
teaching any language that the market shows need and other business segments that we are able to 
develop." The Petitioner further stated that her business would also "add[] training for translation and 
interpretation as well as train[] teachers and professionals and hir[ e] them to offer consulting services 
to international trade companies." 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not the 
national importance, of the proposed endeavor. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Although the Petitioner contends that the documentation submitted in response to the Director's RFE 
discussed the importance of international trade, language teaching, translation, and interpretation, and 
discussed White House initiatives in addressing trade-related challenges, the matter here is not whether 
these initiatives, as well as the topics of international trade and language teaching, translation, and 
interpretation, are nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national 
importance of 
her
specific, proposed endeavor of providing her services as a language translation 
company in the Florida area. 
In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that 
"[a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. 
at 890. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. Here, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her business would largely influence the field and rise to the 
level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. The record does not show through supporting documentation how her endeavor sufficiently 
2 
extends beyond her prospective clients or employees, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, while she provided a business plan for the proposed company, the Petitioner did not present 
any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how her business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible 
or plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. Although the business plan forecasts revenue from $755K in year 1 
to $8.5M in year 5, the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits 
to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Similarly, even though the business plan claims the creation 
of "60 jobs in the short run and possibly thousands more in the long run," the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate the relevance of these numbers and show that such future staffing levels would provide 
substantial economic benefits to the I I Florida region or the U.S. economy more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner, for instance, did not establish that such 
employment figures would utilize a significant population of workers in the area or would substantially 
impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. For all these reasons, the 
record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and 
employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having 
national importance or that it would offer substantial positive economic effects. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis ofthe Petitioner's eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose.2 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 See INS v. Bagamashad. 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessmy to the ultimate decision); see also Matter olL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
3