dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Market Research And Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 04, 2024 In Re: 33361136 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner- who describes himself as a market research analyst, a business analyst, an economist, 
and an administrative manager-seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See 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 that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). 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 the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner qualified for a national interest waiver. 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 l&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. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Id. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) 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 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner has 
established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in 
the national interest. 
The Petitioner stated that he intended to operate a company providing market research and data 
analysis services to investors and to enterprises of all sizes in the United States "seeking sales growth 
and increased profitability in the U.S. market." Although the Director determined that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor had substantial merit, the Director concluded the record did not establish that the 
endeavor is of national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates arguments for the national 
importance of his endeavor and cites evidence previously included in the record. The Petitioner asserts 
that the director's decision "was founded on an erroneous application of law or policy and that the 
decision was inaccurate considering the evidence in the case record at the time of the ruling." The 
Petitioner, however, does not specify how the Director erred or what factors in the decision were 
erroneous.2 This alone is grounds for dismissal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Nevertheless, for the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of his endeavor in order to establish his eligibility under the first 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
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 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
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 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Goining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Comts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 An appeal must specifically identify any enoneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
2 
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. Further, to 
evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we 
look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. 
The Petitioner provided articles discussing the study of economics and the job outlooks for market 
analysts and administrative service managers. This material, however, does not provide sufficient 
insight into the Petitioner's business plans regarding his proposed marketing research and analysis 
services company or how this specific endeavor would have a potential prospective impact of national 
importance. 
The Petitioner also submitted letters of recommendation discussing his work in several management 
positions. We note that evidence of the Petitioner's job experience and performance generally relates 
not to the national importance of an endeavor, as discussed in the first prong of Matter ofDhanasar, 
but to the second,3 which evaluates whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance an endeavor. 
As such, the letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor. 
As to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, in response to a request for evidence (RFE), he provided the 
following description of the services that would be offered by his company: 
By establishing the Company and providing comprehensive marketing research and 
data analytics services, the Petitioner envisions a substantial national-level impact. 
These services play a pivotal role in driving business growth, and their significance lies 
in empowering client companies to make informed decisions, capitalize on market 
opportunities, and navigate dynamic market conditions with confidence As the 
Company expands its operations, it will create a significant number of professional job 
opportunities within its organization, fostering direct employment and knowledge 
transfer. Furthermore, the Company's services will indirectly contribute to job creation 
by supporting the growth and success of client businesses. This multi-faceted direct 
and indirect job creation impact will have a ripple effect on the overall economy, 
fostering economic development, and reinforcing the national employment landscape. 
A business plan submitted in response to the RFE uses similarly vague language to outline the 
Petitioner's intentions; the Petitioner stated the following in his business plan: 
[The Petitioner's] endeavor is to help small, medium-sized, and large enterprises in the 
U.S. achieve sales growth and increased profitability by offering comprehensive 
market research and analysis services . . . . [The Company] will provide cutting-edge 
market research, data analysis, and consulting services, with the aim of empowering 
businesses in making strategic decisions and driving growth. The Company will 
3 Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, determinations 
concerning the second and third prongs are unnecessary to the ultimate decision; therefore, they will be reserved in this 
decision. 
3 
leverage advanced analytics tools and methodologies to deliver actionable insights and 
customized solutions tailored to the specific needs of each client, fostering their success 
in the competitive marketplace. 
[The Company] will also perform data analysis, employing sophisticated statistical 
methods and leveraging powerful software tools to extract meaningful insights from 
the collected data. By identifying emerging trends, patterns and critical findings, the 
Company will empower businesses to make strategic decisions with confidence. 
Through predictive modeling and advanced forecasting techniques, clients will benefit 
from valuable foresight into future market dynamics and the ability to evaluate the 
potential success of innovative products and targeted marketing campaigns. 
The Petitioner, however, did not specifically describe in either his statement or his business plan how 
he would undertake an endeavor of a scale that would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. While the business plan offers an overview of the 
services the Petitioner intends to provide, the asserted national importance of his proposed endeavor 
relies on the overall importance of responsible financial management and data analysis in optimizing 
business performance; the Petitioner did not explain how his individual company would have a 
national-level impact by "ensuring that businesses across the U.S take full advantage of market 
research and data analytics .... " The Petitioner generally speculated that his company's services 
would result in significant business growth in the United States, but he did not provide independent 
evidence or otherwise explain how his company would have a prospective national impact on a 
specific field. 
For example, the business plan anticipates hiring ninety-five individuals by its fifth year of operation, 
resulting in the generation of payroll expenses totaling $6,390,108, and a sales forecast anticipates 
$7,676,760 in revenue. The business plan also estimates paying a total of$1,007,196 in taxes within 
that same timeframe. The Petitioner did not, however, provide a sufficient basis for these projections, 
nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence sufficient to demonstrate that it is more likely 
than not that the company will have a substantial positive economic effect within any field. A 
petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
As another example, on appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes the importance of the positions that the 
Petitioner intends to fill at his company, stating the following: 
The anticipated knowledge transfer through [the company's] hiring and trammg 
initiatives will also contribute to the economic narrative. The plan envisions not only 
filling immediate employment gaps but also enhancing the skillset and capabilities of 
the U.S. workforce, thereby nurturing a more competent and competitive economic 
environment. This multifaceted approach to employment and economic contribution, 
detailed in the business plan, encapsulates the essence of national importance, 
showcasing [the company's] potential to deliver far-reaching benefits to the U.S. 
economy. 
4 
Although the business plan does not address the trammg of any individuals that the Petitioner 
anticipates hiring, here he seems to imply that he intends to pass his knowledge to his employees. He 
also implies that his company's services will transfer that knowledge to his clients-"the U.S. 
workforce"-thereby producing "far-reaching benefits to the U.S. economy." This ambitious vision 
for the impact of the Petitioner's company on the nation's economy is not supported by probative 
evidence, including any evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship between his company's services 
and the economy. The record does not include a plan or other indication of how the Petitioner would 
operate a company that would impact businesses or the economy at the level of national importance 
contemplated under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Notably, 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. Id. at 893. The Petitioner's intent to transmit his 
knowledge to his employees and clients is not considered an activity that would have a broad impact 
on the economy. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the nation. Specifically, he 
has not shown that his business stands to provide substantial economic benefits to any particular 
locality or to the United States overall. While the business plan vaguely explains that his company's 
services would benefit the U.S. economy because they would facilitate the growth of businesses and 
of individuals' investments, these asserted national impacts were not sufficiently supported by 
objective evidence related to his specific proposed endeavor. It is not clear how a business of the size 
and scope described in the business plan would significantly impact a certain region in which his 
employees or clients are located. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to show that he 
would employ a significant population of workers in a particular region, nor has he shown that his 
proposed endeavor would offer substantial economic benefits through employment levels, business 
activity, or tax revenue. As such, the business plan does not demonstrate that the prospective benefits 
to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility 
under the Dhanasar framework. 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 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 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor has national importance. As the 
Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not 
established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The petition will remain denied. 
5 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6