dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
In Re: 33398364 Date: SEP. 19, 2024 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an advanced degree professional, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement attached to this classification. 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 establish eligibility for a 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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 r equirement "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: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. at 889. 
11. ANALYSIS 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in arange 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. 
Id. The tenn "endeavor" is more specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details 
not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to 
undertake specifically within that occupation. For example, while engineering is an occupation, the 
explanation of the proposed endeavor should describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of 
engineering in which the person will work, rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of 
an engineer. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The Director determined that while the Petitioner established that the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, he did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance as set forth 
under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We agree, for the reasons explained 
below. 
The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor is to establish a"Management Consulting, Advisory, 
and Training Office, focusing on law firms and business consulting companies." Noting the 
importance of the role that small businesses play in the U.S. economy, the Petitioner further asserts 
that his "venture's focus on providing training and guidance to businesses and professionals aligns 
with the national interest in workforce development" and "[b ]y offering courses and expertise in areas 
such as Organizational Design, Process and Operations Management, and Administrative Business 
Management Solutions, I am contributing to the development of a skilled and competitive workforce." 
He maintains that his endeavor will "actively engag[e] with professionals from various backgrounds, 
including recent graduates, mid-career professionals, and seasoned experts," and extend "to 
collaborations with academic institutions, research centers, and industry associations" which will 
"serve as conduits for the exchange of cutting-edge research, best practices, and emerging trends, 
ensuring that the programs offered by my venture remain at the forefront of industry developments." 
The Petitioner's business plan indicates that within five years his endeavor will have a projected 
revenue of approximately $2.7 million; employ eight employees and pay $1,412,800 in wages; and 
"contribute to creating/maintaining 62.46 indirect jobs." The Petitioner contends that his endeavor 
will generate significant social impacts in the supply chain, "not only from the generation of jobs and 
income itself but also from the generation of alternatives for various economic areas, such as the 
manufacturing industry, imports, exports, transportation, trade, and services, including suppliers, 
employees, and consumers." In addition, he maintains that he plans to "use 5% of the budget to cany 
out cultural, artistic, and social activities in the local community where the future company will be," 
including "in areas of economic depression." 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he has submitted sufficient evidence of the national importance 
of his proposed endeavor, including acomprehensive business plan and documentation demonstrating 
his record of exceptional achievements, recognition in his field, and contributions of major 
significance in his area of expertise. 
In the present case, the Petitioner relies primarily on the importance of small businesses to the U.S. 
economy as well as the growing need for consulting services. We first note here that the Petitioner's 
experience and abilities in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Dhanasar at 890. 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 "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. In Dhanasar, 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. A local physical therapy business and a shortage of physical therapists in the United 
States does not render the proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. 
Although the Petitioner contends that his consulting firm, which will be based in the I I region 
of Florida will have sales proceeds of $2.7 million by the fifth year and has the potential to "generate 
a substantial number of jobs contributing directly to the reduction of unemployment and revitalizing 
the labor market," resulting in a "positive ripple effect [that] will extend to supporting industries, 
suppliers, and service providers, fostering economic growth and stability," these projections are not 
supported by relevant or probative evidence. Further, his endeavor does not include any specific plans 
or demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his endeavor would 
reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Instead, the Petitioner supports his claims with references to third party documentation relating to the 
management consulting market, the general operations managers market, and supply chain and 
enterprise potential. However, generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact 
to the field have little probative value. 2 
The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence, aside from claims in his statements and his 
business plan, that his endeavor's activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to the 
I I region of Florida or the United States or benefit an economically depressed area, and his 
statements are not sufficient to demonstrate his endeavor has the potential to provide economic, 
societal, and security benefits to the United States. Without sufficient information or evidence 
regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, 
the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects." In 
the end, the economic benefits that the Petitioner claims will result from his endeavor depend on 
numerous factors and the Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between his 
proposed endeavor and the claimed economic results. 
2 See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
3 
We recognize the importance of the financial services industry and of small businesses to the U.S. 
economy, and while the Petitioner's management consulting services may "contribute" to economic 
growth, he has not demonstrated that his specific business - alone - would have national implications 
for the U.S. economy, the Florida region, or the management consulting field. 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. 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under Dhanasar's second and third 
prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reached"); see also Matter 
of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4