dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 21, 2024 In Re: 30354435 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the marketing industry, 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. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested 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 Christo '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. An 
advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree 
followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Once 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." 
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: 
• 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 determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional. 2 Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has 
established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The first Dhanasar 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with the Director's 
conclusion that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit as the endeavor falls within the range of 
areas we concluded could demonstrate an endeavor of substantial merit: business and 
entrepreneurialism. Id. However, while the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, the record does not show it has national importance. 
The Director concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
national importance because there was no significant potential to employ U.S. workers or generate 
other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area. Moreover, 
the Director determined that Petitioner's proposed marketing business would not offer benefits that 
would impact her industry more broadly. 
The Petitioner generally asserts that the Director did not apply the correct burden of proof and failed 
to properly consider the evidence on record establishing both her vast experience in the field well as 
the impact of her proposed business endeavor. Upon de novo review of the record, we see no error in 
the Director's evaluation of the evidence as it does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance as contemplated under the Dhanasar 
framework. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner plans to develop and manage a marketing consulting agency to 
provide small and medium-sized companies a variety of marketing services. The Petitioner asserts 
that this endeavor is of national importance because she will "generate jobs for U.S. workers, as well 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 The Petitioner's brief states the "[ss ]ervice does not agree that the Appellant qualifies for the requested classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree." The Director did, however, conclude that the Petitioner qualified 
for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. We accept the Director's 
determination. 
2 
as significant and profitable opportunities for the national economy." She claims her proposed 
endeavor will "contribute to access to innovation, new business practices, and economic prosperity, 
[and] generate American jobs, increase national and international integration and productivity, and 
enhance revenues for the U.S. economy at large." In support, the Petitioner provided a definitive 
statement, a five-year business plan, recommendation letters from prior customers attesting to her 
success in marketing initiatives and business development, evidence of past marketing projects, and 
industry reports and articles detailing the economic importance of immigrants, entrepreneurs, small 
businesses, and the marketing industry. 3 
On appeal, the Petitioner continues to rely on industry reports and articles, as well as her experience 
in marketing, without establishing how her specific endeavor will have "broader implications." When 
considering the national importance of a proposed endeavor, the pertinent 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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. Accordingly, the Petitioner's reliance on background information and statistics 
concerning entrepreneurs, business development, and the marketing field generally are not persuasive. 
In addition, while we recognize that the Petitioner has successfully implemented marketing solutions 
for her clients in the past and has been commended by her former clients for being "highly capable 
and [a] very responsible professional demonstrated to be important to the advertising industry," the 
record does not establish the Petitioner's impact to the field beyond her immediate clients. Moreover, 
a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar' s second prong, 
which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue 
here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 
Turning to the specific endeavor, the Petitioner's definitive statement and business plan indicate that 
she will provide various marketing services, including brand strategy, digital marketing analysis, 
strategic planning, full analysis and industry research, and social media management. In response to 
the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner asserted that this endeavor "presents national 
importance to the U.S., because of the ripple effects it generates upon commercial activities, the 
business industry, foreign direct investments, and ultimately the U.S. economy." The business plan 
claims that, over the initial five years of operations, the company will have a positive impact to the 
U.S. economy based on its projected total revenue of $4,825,500 and the creation of eighty-one jobs 
(comprised of 46 full-time positions, 19 part-time positions, and 16 contract positions). 4 This 
projected revenue will also result in $363,500 of income taxes paid in that same period. Notably, the 
business plan provides no explanation for the basis of these projections and does not elaborate on how 
the proposed employment numbers will impact the area of intended operations. 5 
3 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
4 Although not addressed by the Petitioner, we acknowledge that the Director's decision mistakenly states that the 
Petitioner's business plan reflected an intent to hire 24 workers within the first five years of operations. 
5 While not a basis for our decision, we note that the record shows the Petitioner's business has been in operation for more 
than two years prior to the filing of this petition; however, the actual earnings noted in the 2020 tax returns are less than 
one fifth the amount projected in the business plan. Moreover, the record does not include evidence of the hiring of 
employees consistent with the stated projections. While a petitioner is not required to show that a proposed endeavor is 
more likely than not to ultimately succeed, the Petitioner may want to address this in any future filings. 
3 
Yet, even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were more than conjecture, they do 
not establish that the endeavor would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance. In 
Dhanasar, we explained 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 be considered to have national importance." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. According 
to the business plan, beyond her initial operations inl IFL, the Petitioner indicates that the 
business will open five additional branch offices between the second and fifth years of operation, 
including offices in South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Kentucky. However, the Petitioner 
has not established how her operations will result in "substantial positive economic effects" for the 
proposed areas. Id. For instance, the business plan does not provide salaries for all 81 claimed jobs, 
nor does it elaborate on how the Petitioner's proposed employees will be divided among these 
locations. We are therefore unable to ascertain what, if any, impact her operations would have on the 
local economy. Moreover, the Petitioner does not offer an evidentiary basis to conclude that the 
"ripple effects" of her proposed endeavor will affect the U.S. economy at large. While any basic 
economic activity has the potential to positively impact the economy, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how the economic activity of her proposed endeavor would rise to the level of national 
importance. 
Likewise, the Petitioner's intention to base her branch offices in Small Business Administration 
HUBZones does not establish that her endeavor is in the national interest, despite her contention that 
the HUBZone program is "linked to a National Initiative." As the Petitioner does not have physical 
locations for her proposed branch offices, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that her 
business will in fact be in a HUBZone. Further, the Petitioner did not indicate that her endeavor would 
participate in the HUBZone program or that it would be eligible to do so. 6 More importantly, however, 
the record does not adequately establish that increased employment in these designated underntilized 
business zones would have positive economic effects commensurate with national importance. So, 
the fact that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor may be in a HUBZone does not establish that the 
Petitioner's endeavor is of national importance. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the evidence of her work shows that she has already made "vast 
contributions in her field" and "will create value for U.S. organizations" through her endeavor by 
providing advice to optimize their business functions. We have reviewed the evidence of the 
Petitioner's past projects, including her contribution to the I I project; however, these 
contributions do not rise to the level of national importance. In the same way teaching activities 
proposed by the petitioner in Dhanasar were not shown to have a broader impact on the field of STEM 
education, activities like the offerings outlined in the business plan that do not extend beyond the 
Petitioner's clients, would not have broader implications in the field. Dhanasar at 889. Similarly, 
while the Petitioner helped incorporate the concept of archetype marketing for her small business 
clients, she acknowledged that this methodology has been used for several years in the industry by 
larger corporations and, thus, we cannot conclude that such work has impacted the field more broadly. 
6 There are several required qualifications to participate in the program, including that the business seeking to participate 
in the HUBZone program must be at least 51% owned by U.S. citizens, a community development corporation, an 
agricultural cooperative, an Alaska Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. Here, the record 
does not establish that the Petitioner's business would qualify for the program. 
4 
Finally, we reviewed the expert opinion letter from Dr. V-L- and conclude that it provides little 
additional explanation to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Dr. 
V-L- does not discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or her business plan, and instead 
focuses primarily on the importance of the marketing industry. For example, the expert opines that, 
"[ww ]ithout effective Marketing management, trading across Latin America, and in this case, Brazil, 
would be substantially reduced," yet Dr. V-L- offers no explanation as to how the Petitioner's specific 
endeavor would improve trade in Latin America or in the United States. USCIS may, in its discretion, 
use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources 
submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 
1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a 
noncitizen's eligibility. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&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). Here, much of the content of the expert opinion letter 
lacked relevance with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she 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 I&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. 
5