dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Lumber Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 24, 2024 In Re: 30291279 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a technology marketing and sales manager, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) 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 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 merited a waiver of the job offer requirement, and therefore labor 
certification, for EB-2 classification. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts eligibility and resubmits evidence previously provided to 
the Director. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 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 qualify for the underlying 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 establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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, 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 
• 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 proposed to operate as the chief executive officer of a newly created lumber retailer 
and wholesaler, I I with an emphasis on importing specific products from Brazil. In the 
business plan submitted to the Director, the Petitioner claimed that the operation would employ 12 
individuals in the I I Florida area by year five. Additionally, the Petitioner claimed revenue of 
nearly $2 million in year five with a net profit of $143,784. The Director issued a request for evidence 
(RFE), determining that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as member of the professions 
with an advanced degree, but seeking additional information regarding the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor and additional evidence that the Petitioner was well positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a document titled "Financial Business Overview of 
I I a new statement from counsel, and evidence that the Petitioner owns various parcels 
of land in Brazil. The Petitioner also submitted multiple letters of support regarding his past work 
experience and managerial expertise. The Director determined that, while the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor had substantial merit, the collective evidence did not establish that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor had the economic, industrial, social, or cultural impact necessary to meet the national interest 
criteria described in the first prong of Dhanasar. In addition, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish his eligibility under the second prong of 
Dhanasar, being well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner requests that USCIS reconsider their decision regarding the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor and his qualifications to complete that endeavor. The Petitioner 
resubmits the evidence provided to the Director and argues that his proposed endeavor would create 
jobs, increase tax revenue, promote positive trade relations with Brazil, and ensure resource 
accessibility to the I I area constrnction market. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, 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. 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 has 
other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
The Petitioner's initial business plan provided to the Director indicated that his company would 
increase revenue from $1 .1 million to $2 million in the first five years of operation. However, in the 
"Financial Business Overview of I I provided in response to the RFE, the Petitioner 
claims that his business would rise from $2.7 million in year one to more than $20 million in year five. 
The initial business plan also indicated the Petitioner would see profits of$143 ,784 in year five, while 
the financial business overview claimed profit of $11 ,616,473 in year five. The Petitioner further 
states that in addition to the hiring of U.S. employees, his company would pay $20.7 million in 
"shipping, duties, and taxes" to the U.S. economy. The Petitioner did not provide an explanation for 
the substantial discrepancies between the initial business plan and the financial business overview 
submitted in response to the RFE. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and 
sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id.; see also 
Matter of O-M-0- , 28 I&N Dec. 191, 197 (BIA 2021) ("by submitting fabricated evidence, the 
appellant compromised the integrity of his entire claim") (cleaned up). The Petitioner has relied upon 
two distinct and divergent financial forecasts to claim that his proposed endeavor will have a 
significant impact on the U.S. economy. As the Petitioner has not explained the discrepancies between 
these two forecasts or identified which of the two economic forecasts is an accurate reflection of his 
proposed endeavor, he has not established that his endeavor will have significant benefits to the U.S. 
economy as claimed on appeal. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for the United States. Specifically, he has not shown that his company' s future staffing levels, 
business profits, or associated tax revenue would have significant economic impacts in Florida or the 
United States or otherwise extend beyond his clientele to impact the lumber industry or cross-border 
trade initiatives more broadly and at a level commensurate with national importance. Due to the 
substantial variation in the Petitioner's claimed sales forecasts, the Petitioner has not adequately 
demonstrated the potential benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking or 
that it would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Moreover, the Petitioner has not adequately explained how either 
sales forecast was calculated or otherwise substantiated the forecasts with additional evidence. 
Although the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable lumber to the I I 
market and create 12 full time positions within five years of commencing business, he has not offered 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the area where I Ioperates is economically 
depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers in that area, or that the prospective 
impact of his proposed endeavor would offer substantial economic benefit such that it rises to the level 
of national importance. Finally, although the Petitioner asserts that his company will increase positive 
trade relations between the United States and Brazil, he has not provided evidence to substantiate his 
claim that his proposed endeavor would have a measurable impact on U.S. trade relations with one of its 
largest trading partners, Brazil. 
3 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his 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 of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose and we reserve 
those issues on appeal. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not 
required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 
see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where the applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4