dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC . 11, 2023 In Re: 28819101 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , a management consultant , seeks classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached 
to this EB-2 classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 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 qualifies 
for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional but that the record did not establish that 
a waiver of the job offer requirement is 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 Christa '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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 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 pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner established eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an advanced 
degree professional. Based upon the evidence in the record that the Petitioner obtained the foreign 
equivalent of a bachelor's degree in business administration followed by more than five years of 
progressive work experience in sales, finance, and business management, we agree. The Director also 
found that the Petitioner established the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor and that he is well­
positioned to advance it. However, the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish the national 
importance of the endeavor or that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the 
United States. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief in which he asserts that he has established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner qroposes to establish a management consulting business,
I J, based i~ lFlorida. The Petitioner states that~th_e_c-om_p_a_n_y_w_i_ll_o_f_I-er~ 
services such as corporate strategy consulting, financial advisory services, process and operation 
management consulting, human resources consulting, and marketing and sales consulting. 
In finding that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, the 
Director concluded that the evidence overall did not show that the proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond the company and its clients to impact the industry more broadly. The 
Director noted that the relevant question in the national importance determination is not the importance 
of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work, but rather the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. The Director concluded that the articles and reports that the 
Petitioner submitted, although they related to consulting services and doing business in the United 
States, did not discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor or its potential impact. Similarly, the Director 
found that both the expert opinion letter and counsel's brief emphasize the importance of the 
Petitioner's field, rather than discussing the impact of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. The Director 
also reviewed the business plan and concluded that it did not establish that the proposed business 
would significantly impact the poverty rate or living conditions in the region as claimed or that it 
stands to provide significant positive economic benefits. The Director discussed the letters of 
recommendation submitted and concluded that, although they praise the Petitioner's professional 
achievements and qualifications, the authors did not sufficiently discuss the proposed endeavor or 
describe how it would have national importance. Finally, the Director concluded that the evidence 
related to the importance of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields did not 
establish that the prospective impact of the Petitioner's business rises to the level of national 
importance. 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S. 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director, in considering national importance, did not apply 
the proper standard of proof: and instead imposed a stricter standard than a preponderance of the 
evidence. The Petitioner reiterates his claim that he has established the national importance of the 
endeavor because the services that the company will provide are needed and valuable, the company 
will create jobs and benefit the economy, and the company will benefit its clients' businesses and the 
U.S. economy in tum. 
In determining national importance, we consider an endeavor's potential prospective impact. Matter 
of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national or global implications within a 
particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical 
advances, may have national importance. Id. Additionally, an endeavor that has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or to have other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area, may have national importance. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner notes as an initial matter on appeal that in the Director's decision there are several 
places in which the Director uses the pronouns "she" or "her," although the Petitioner is male. The 
Petitioner cites this language from the decision on appeal: 
USCIS can consider information about the petitioner's current and prospective 
positions to illustrate the capacity in which she intends to work in order to determine 
whether her proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. Continuing employment in one's position, field, or 
industry is not an endeavor sufficient to evaluate under this analytical framework. 
The Petitioner states that these are "troubling and discrepant errors" that indicate either the Petitioner's 
case has been confused with another petition or that the Director used "pre-prepared responses" and 
incorrectly applied them. But in looking at the decision overall, we do not agree that the Director did 
not properly or meaningfully analyze the record in this case. Rather, the Director's decision clearly 
refers to specific evidence in the record and is detailed in its analysis of that evidence. Moreover, the 
specific language which the Petitioner references here could be read as using the pronouns in a general 
sense to provide background information on the relevant legal requirements, rather than referring to 
the Petitioner specifically. Although we acknowledge that the Director used feminine pronouns in 
several places, in the context of the decision overall, this claimed error is, at most, harmless. See 
generally Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 350 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing cases regarding harmless 
or scrivener's errors). Nevertheless, we conduct a de novo review on appeal, and we have considered 
the evidence in the record in full. While we may not discuss each piece of evidence in our decision, 
we have reviewed and considered each one. 
The Petitioner next reiterates on appeal the claim that the articles and reports in the record establish 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner discusses specifically a Bloomberg 
article about the shortage of management consulting professionals and an article about how consultants 
can help small businesses. Although the Petitioner claims that the articles help establish the national 
importance of the endeavor, the Petitioner does not address the Director's conclusion that these articles 
relate to the importance of the industry in general, rather than establishing the national importance of 
the Petitioner's specific endeavor. For example, as to the Bloomberg article about the shortage of 
3 
management consulting professionals, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
consulting services stand to have an impact on this shortage that would rise to the level of national 
importance. We agree with the Director that 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 [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. As such, we conclude that the articles and reports in the record do not establish 
that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor has national importance. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes on appeal the potential financial benefits of the proposed endeavor as 
demonstrated in the business plan. Additionally, the Petitioner contends that the specific issues the 
Director noted regarding the plan were in fact properly addressed. For example, the Director found 
that the plan was unclear because it provides an estimate for payroll taxes without providing an 
estimate for payroll expenses. The Director also questioned whether there would be a large potential 
clientele for the company's relatively specialized services and stated that the plan "does not establish 
how impoverished persons in the claimed under served areas will be able to afford his services." The 
Petitioner asserts that the payroll expenses are in fact provided in the plan and that the estimates for 
potential clientele are sufficiently explained and are based on U.S. Census Bureau data about the 
number of small manufacturing businesses operating in Florida. 
We acknowledge that the plan does list individual estimated wages for potential workers, although we 
could not locate an estimate for total payroll expenses. Additionally, the plan does discuss the number 
of manufacturing businesses in Florida based on U.S. Census Bureau data. But even if we accept the 
business plan's assumptions, such as to the percentage of those businesses that will hire the company 
and pay for its services, the plan projects that it will have 30 workers and pay approximately $500,000 
in payroll taxes in its fifth year of operations. Even were we to assume that these projections are 
credible, the Petitioner has not explained how the creation of 30 jobs in five years would have a 
substantial positive economic effect, either regionally or nationally, commensurate with national 
importance. We agree with the Director that the record does not establish the endeavor's significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or to have other substantial positive economic effects as described 
in Matter ofDhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner next addresses on appeal the Director's finding that the letters of recommendation relate 
to the Petitioner's past work and achievements and do not sufficiently discuss the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor or its national importance. The Petitioner contends that the letters are, in fact, relevant in 
establishing national importance, stating that with this consulting business the Petitioner "plans to do 
exactly the same work he did and is doing in Brazil, that is helping his customers and their respective 
companies to reduce costs and leverage their sales and earnings, thus positively impacting the local 
and national economy." 
In reviewing the letters of recommendation, we acknowledge that they help show that the Petitioner 
is an experienced consultant in Brazil who appears to be well-respected by his colleagues and 
customers. One of the letter writers, a prior colleague of the Petitioner, states that the Petitioner was 
known to provide excellent service to his clients. They write, for example, that "[ o ]ften, customers 
had not even identified a problem in their production line and with [the Petitioner's] experience and 
sensitivity, he detected the point of attention and took the solution to the customer who was generally 
delighted with the service .... " Another one of his former colleagues states that the Petitioner brought 
4 
in a large portfolio of clients to their company, consistently exceeded his performance goals, and that 
"[ e ]very one was aware of his management methods and started to adhere to his formats for a simple 
reason: [his] results were very good and everyone wanted to know how he did it." The Petitioner also 
submitted letters from prior clients who were pleased with his work and whose companies benefitted 
from his management consulting and financial advisory services. 
But the record does not contain evidence that the Petitioner's past achievements have resulted in a 
broad impact on the consulting field or impacted the economy in Brazil, and the Petitioner's 
unsupported statement to the contrary is insufficient to meet his burden of proof. We agree with the 
Director that the evidence of a petitioner's skills, knowledge, and record of success generally relates 
to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor 
to the [ noncitizen ]" and whether they are well-positioned to advance it. Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 890. While a petitioner's past work and achievements can be helpful in illustrating 
how they plan to carry out their proposed endeavor and in some circumstances its potential to have a 
broad impact, in general the focus of the first prong is on the proposed endeavor itself and not the 
pet1t10ner. See id. The issue here is whether the Petitioner's specific endeavor-operating a 
management consulting business in Florida- has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
The Petitioner has not provided evidence of achievements in the field that demonstrate that the 
endeavor has the potential to impact the consulting field or the economy at a level commensurate with 
national importance. 
The Petitioner also contends that, under the Dhanasar framework, a petitioner may establish national 
importance by demonstrating that they aim "to solve certain problems that are present nationwide, 
even if the endeavor is in one geographic location" and that "by welcoming highly qualified foreign 
nationals that will introduce successful ideas and methods in one geographic area in the U.S., these 
improvements and innovations could be replicated across the country for a larger impact, thus making 
them important on a national scale even if their scope is not." But the Petitioner does not describe 
offering specific "improvements and innovations" in management consulting that could be replicated 
across the country. The evidence in the record does not establish that the Petitioner has a particular 
management consulting service model or methodology that is different from what is currently 
available on the market, that is replicable, and that he intends to disseminate through the field on a 
scale that would be commensurate with national importance. Rather, the Petitioner describes his 
proposed endeavor as simply continuing to offer management consulting services. The Petitioner has 
not offered sufficient information or evidence to establish that by offering his management consulting 
services, his ideas and methods have the potential to result in a broad impact on the consulting field. 
Throughout the Petitioner's appeal brief: he repeats his claims that the proposed business will create 
jobs, provide needed services to its clients, and contribute to the economy by paying taxes and 
improving its client businesses' profitability. Although the record reflects the Petitioner's experience 
in the field and his intention to provide valuable services to his clients, the Petitioner has not offered 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the 
level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did 
not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not extend beyond his students 
to impact the education field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown 
that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact 
5 
the management consulting industry or the U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
The Petitioner's claims on appeal do not overcome the basis for the Director's findings as they relate 
to the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Moreover, upon de novo review, we agree that 
the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Because the 
documentation in the record does not establish national importance as required by the first prong of 
the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 
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 is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6