dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 07, 2023 In Re: 28804324 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a marketing manager and entrepreneur, 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). 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. The Director concluded that although 
the Petitioner established eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, the record did not demonstrate she merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer 
requirement 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 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 a/Chri sta 's , Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. An 
advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree.1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or aforeign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
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 USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion2, 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. 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established her eligibility as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree.3 The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner is eligible or otherwise 
merits a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Director found that while 
the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, she did not establish that the 
proposed endeavor is of national importance, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. The Director further found that the Petitioner did not establish that she is well positioned 
to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong, and that, on balance, it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification 
under Dhanasar's third prong. Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's determination that 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a waiver of the labor certification would be in the national 
interest.4 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to unde1iake. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance 
of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 
at 889. 
The Petitioner proposes to work as the chief executive officer for her new digital marketing consulting 
services business which she co-founded with her husband in Florida in 2020. The business plan 
indicates that the business provides market assessment studies, marketing event execution, digital 
marketing campaign services, marketing consulting outsourcing, and branding creation and promotion 
plan. The business plan explains that the business provides its services to start-up and small businesses 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 To demonstrate she is an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner submitted her diploma indicating she earned a 
bachelor's degree in advertising with minors in creativity and management from Universidad.__ _______ __, 
in Dominican Republic on October 25, 2005; the corresponding academic transcript; an academic evaluation; and letters 
from her employers. The record demonstrates that she holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in 
advertising and at least five years of progressive experience in her specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
4 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
in Florida and intends to provide its services and establish offices inl I New York and~I-~ 
Michigan within five years. We agree with the Director that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial 
merit. 
Even though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Director found that the 
record did not establish that "her proposed endeavor in this case stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
an organization or its clients, to impact the industry or field more broadly." The Director found that 
her "proposed work does not meet the national importance part of the first prong of the Dhanasar 
5framework. " 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director "did not apply the proper standard of proof ... , 
instead imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applied the law .... " (emphasis omitted). The 
Petitioner further argues that the Director "did not give due regard" to the evidence submitted, 
specifically the Petitioner's resume explaining her experience; her business plan describing her 
credentials, professional experience, and the benefits she offers the United States; evidence of her 
contributions to the field; letters of recommendation; and industry reports and articles showing the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor and the shortage of workers in her field. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Upon 
de nova review, we find the record does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance element of Dhanasar's first prong. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that her proposed endeavor has national importance, particularly 
because over a five year period it will create 23 direct new jobs for U.S. workers, pay wages of $2.2 
million, and "boost local economies, specifically in the underserved business zones of several states 
across the United States." The Petitioner stresses her more than 20 years of professional experience 
"allow her to provide any U.S. firm or company more rapidly and efficiently with a competitive 
advantage," thereby making "contributions of major significance to the corporate industry in the 
[United States]." She relies on her entrepreneurial and marketing experience to argue, "Professionals 
such as [the Petitioner] are an essential component of the U.S. economic market;" accurately 
representing "American business values, and, in turn, have proved to constantly disrupt U.S. 
commercial markets, along with the nation's monetary production and global economic standing." 
(emphasis omitted). 
However, the Petitioner's reliance on her professional experience and achievements to establish the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor is misplaced. Her professional experience and 
5 In considering the evidence, the Director did not review a second business plan submitted with the Petitioner's reply to 
a request for evidence stating, "[T]he Petitioner submitted a business plan dated December 2022; however, the plan 
postdates the Form 1-140 petition priority date, 22 February 2011; therefore, it is inadmissible." Although we do not agree 
with the Director's inadmissibility of the new business plan since it further explains the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
initially indicated in her petition, the new business plan is relatively the same as the first business plan submitted with the 
petition and the information in new business plan does not change our determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that a waiver of the labor certification would be in the national interest. 
3 
achievements relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here 
is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance 
under Dhanasar 's first prong. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the 
national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" 
of her work. See id. at 889. 
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 the field more broadly. Id. at 893. The record 
does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will substantially benefit the field of 
marketing, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. The evidence 
does not suggest that the Petitioner's digital marketing consulting services business would impact the 
marketing field more broadly. 
The Petitioner argues that her business plan shows her proposed endeavor has national importance 
based on potential economic benefits. The business plan explains that its main office will be located 
in an underutilized business zone in Florida and will expand within five years to underutilized business 
zones inl INew York and inl IMichigan. She asserts her business would generate jobs 
for U.S. workers in these underutilized business communities, improve wages and working conditions 
for U.S. citizens, and increase investment and economic development in local communities. The 
business plan also explains the business' ownership and investment; products and services with an 
industry analysis of its services; the marketing strategy; projected staffing; and financial forecasts. 
However, the record does not sufficiently document the potential prospective impact, including the 
asserted economic benefits to Florida and the United States. 
The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support her claims that her business' 
activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to the underutilized business areas of Florida, 
New York, Michigan, or the United States. The Petitioner's claims that her digital marketing 
consulting services business will benefit the Florida, New York, Michigan, or U.S. economies have 
not been established through independent and objective evidence. The Petitioner's statements are not 
sufficient to demonstrate her endeavor has the potential to provide economic benefits to the United 
States. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Also, without sufficient documentary evidence that her 
proposed job duties as a co-owner and chief executive officer of her business would impact the 
marketing industry more broadly, rather than benefiting her business and her proposed clients, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that her proposed endeavor is of 
national importance. 
The business plan projects that in five years the business will create 23 direct jobs and 168 indirect 
jobs; pay wages of over $2.2 million; and generate over $6 million in revenue and over $300 thousand 
in federal income taxes. However, the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and 
staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized. The Petitioner has 
not provided corroborating evidence demonstrating that her business' future staffing levels and 
business activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to Florida, New York, Michigan, 
4 
and the United States. While the Petitioner expresses her desire to contribute to the United States and 
its underutilized business areas, she has not established with specific, probative evidence that her 
endeavor will have broader implications in her field, will have significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers, or will have other substantial positive economic effects in an economically underutilized 
business communities of Florida, New York, and Michigan. The Petitioner must support her assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See id. Even if we were to assume everything the 
Petitioner claims will happen, the record lacks evidence showing that creating 23 direct jobs and 168 
indirect jobs; paying wages of over $2.2 million; and generating over $6 million in revenue and over 
$300 thousand in federal income taxes over a five-year period rises to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner further claims on appeal that the national importance of her proposed endeavor is 
evidenced in industry reports and articles. She argues that the reports and articles demonstrate the 
importance of marketing to the economic success of companies and the U.S. economic benefits of 
foreign direct investments and immigrant entrepreneurs. The record includes industry reports and 
articles relating to the importance of digital marketing to the growth of businesses; managing digital 
marketing returns, privacy, and climate impact; the effect of artificial intelligence on marketing for 
media companies; data analytics in marketing; expected marketing trends in 2025; shortage of 
qualified marketing professionals; digital marketing managers and consultants; and marketing 
consultants; and the economic benefits of immigrant workers and entrepreneurs. 
We recognize the importance of the marketing industry and related careers, and the significant 
contributions from immigrants who have become successful entrepreneurs; however, merely working 
in the marketing field or starting a digital marketing consulting services business is insufficient to 
establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, of focusing on the importance of 
an industry or a shortage of workers in an industry, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 
We note that the record includes an expert opinion from ._______ __,, associate professor 
of marketing at I I University. The opinion includes an analysis of the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stating, " [The Petitioner] will work in an area of 
substantial merit and national importance." (emphasis omitted). The opinion explains the expected 
growth of job opportunities in the marketing field and that the Petitioner is qualified "to train and 
provide marketing insights for the international companies that plan to conduct business in the United 
States." However, the opinion's focus on the need for marketing professionals for foreign companies 
proposing to do business in the United States does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific 
endeavor may have a prospective impact in her field. The opinion does not focus on the Petitioner 's 
specific endeavor and it having a potential prospective impact on the U.S. economy or in the field of 
her proposed endeavor. Simply stating that her work would support an important industry which is 
expected to have job growth is not sufficient to meet the "national importance" requirement under the 
Dhanasar framework. 
Also, the record does not indicate that the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor includes doing business with 
foreign companies planning to do business in the United States. Where an opinion is not in accord 
with other information or is in any way questionable, USCIS is not required to accept it or may give 
it less weight. See Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 817 (Comm'r 1988). The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Matter of Caron lnt 'I, 
5 
19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988); see also Matter of D-R-, 25 l&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 
2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, 
reliability, and the overall probative value). 
The Petitioner does not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor extends beyond her business and her 
future clients to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Beyond general assertions, she has not demonstrated that 
the work she proposes to undertake as the co-owner and chief executive officer of her proposed digital 
marketing consulting services business offers original innovations that contribute to advancements in 
her industry or otherwise has broader implications for her field. The economic benefits that the 
Petitioner claims depend on numerous factors, and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct 
evidentiary tie between her proposed business' digital marketing consulting services work and the 
claimed economic results. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments and her eligibility under Dhanasar 's second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision 
of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 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). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as amatter of discretion. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6