dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 28, 2024 In Re: 30315574 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner is a marketing administrator who 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. § 1 153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director determined the 
Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 visa classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree but did not establish her eligibility for a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement. 
The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 as 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). 
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." 
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, grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner demonstrates that: 1 
• 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. ADVANCED DEGREE PROFESSIONAL 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. For the reasons provided 
below, we withdraw the Director's determination. 
The Petitioner submitted the following evidence related to her education and work experience: 
• Transcript and course completion certificate for "Latu Sensu" specialization-level studies, 
(MBA in Marketin : Em hasis on Sales awarded by the I I 
in December 2013. 
• Transcript and diploma for completion of a bachelor's degree in administration from I I 
I in February 2011, following four years of post-secondary study. 
• Employment letter confirming the Petitioner worked as a sales supervisor at a retail 
location in Brazil from April 2014 through August 2016. 
• Accountant-prepared declaration of income statements stating the Petitioner's annual income 
(and source of income) for the years 2015 through 2020. 
• Evidence related to the ownership and management of the Brazilian entity I ______
I Ithe Petitioner's claimed former employer. 
The Director's determination that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree appears to be based solely on her academic credentials. However, the submitted 
evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner has either a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree followed by five years 
of progressive experience in the same specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "advanced 
degree"). 
According to the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) 
Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE), a lato sensu course certificate is not necessarily 
evidence of completion of a graduate degree program. 2 The database states that lato sensu or "wide 
sense" graduate programs "lead toward a professional certificate, not to graduate degrees; graduate 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 We consider EDGE to be a reliable source of information about foreign credential equivalencies. See Confluence Intern., 
Inc. v. Holder, Civil No. 08-2665 (DSD-JJG), 2009 WL 825793 (D. Minn. Mar. 27, 2009); Tisco Group, Inc. v. Napolitano, 
No. 09-cv-10072, 2010 WL 3464314 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2010); Sunshine Rehab Services, Inc. No. 09-13605, 2010 WL 
3325442 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2010). See also Viraj, LLC v. Holder, No. 2:12-CV-00127-RWS, 2013 WL 1943431 (N.D. 
Ga. May 18, 2013). 
2 
credits may be awarded." 3 The database contrasts this with stricto sensu or "strict sense" graduate 
programs which do lead toward graduate degrees. 4 The Petitioner did not submit an evaluation of her 
foreign educational credentials and has not established that her lato sensu MBA course certificate is 
the equivalent of an academic or professional degree above that of a bachelor's degree. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). 
The information provided by the EDGE database confirms that the Petitioner's four-year degree 
completed in 2011 is the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree. However, the record does not 
adequately document that she has five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the same 
specialty. Evidence relating to qualifying experience should be in the form of letters from current or 
former employers and shall include the name, address and title of the writer, and a specific description 
of the duties performed by the individual. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l). The Petitioner submitted a 
letter from a former employer, I I confirming that she worked for this company as a sales 
supervisor for two years and four months, but the letter did not include a description of the duties she 
performed or indicate whether her employment was full-time or part-time. 
The Petitioner indicates in her submitted resume that she was employed as co-founder and business 
development manager for I I from 2012 until 2020. 5 She submitted annual income 
declaration statements from an accountant indicating that she earned income from this company as its 
"managing partner" from 2016 through 2020. While the record demonstrates that the Petitioner was, 
at times, a shareholder ofl Iit does not contain sufficient evidence that she was its 
"managing partner" or sufficiently document her work experience with this company.6 Neither the 
company's ownership documents nor the income declarations from the Petitioner's accountant are 
sufficient to document the length or nature of her work experience with this company. 
Therefore, the record does not sufficiently document the Petitioner's five years of progressive post­
baccalaureate experience. The Director's determination that she established her eligibility for EB-2 
classification as member of the professions holding an advanced degree is withdrawn. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The remaining issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner has established her eligibility for a 
national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not sufficiently 
describe her proposed endeavor. The Director further concluded that she did not demonstrate her 
proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, that she is well-positioned to 
3 See https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country/glossary/brazil for more information. 
4 Id. 
5 We note that the Petitioner concunently filed a Form T-485, Application to Adjust Status or Register Pennanent 
Residence, which required her to provide her employment history for the last five years. The Petitioner stated that her 
only employment during that period was withl lfrom April 2014 until August 2016. 
6 The Petitioner submitted an "amendment and consolidation of articles of incorporation" for Iindicating 
that she sold and transfened all 15.000 of her shares to another shareholder in February 2015, and was "removed from the 
company." A second amendment to the articles of incorporation, executed in November 2019 {after the Petitioner relocated 
to the United States), indicates that she reacquired a minority ownership interest in I with the management 
and administration of the company entrusted to its majority owner. 
3 
advance it, and that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer 
requirement. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision contains erroneous 
conclusions oflaw and fact and does not reflect consideration of all submitted evidence. She maintains 
that she meets all three prongs set forth in Dhanasar and otherwise established that a discretionary 
waiver of the job offer requirement would be in the national interest. 
For the reasons provided below, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not 
establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor and is therefore ineligible for the requested 
national interest waiver. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that she intends to work as a marketing administrator. She 
submitted a professional plan for a project or business she referred to as ________ 
Much of the plan provides background information regarding digital marketing and advertising 
methods and the current market for these technologies. In a section titled "Project Purpose," the plan 
states that the Petitioner, through this project, "will provide marketing campaigns to U.S. companies 
with the focus on strategies to combat the financial crises caused by the Covid-19 pandemic." The 
plan further states that I Iwill identify the specific needs of each business in 
order to create strategies that best meet such needs." The professional plan included a proforma profit 
and loss statement for _________ listing its expected annual sales, operating expenses, 
and net profit over a five-year period. 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a "personal statement and 
professional plan" that made no specific reference to the ___________ identified 
in the initial plan. She stated: 
My proposed endeavor is to perform as a Marketing Administrator in the United States. 
My proposed endeavor is to implement my refined set of skills as a Marketing 
Administrator in order to develop and outline good marketing planning and brand 
innovation to stimulate exponential growth in organizations located in the United 
States, being responsible for ensuring the company's expansion and maintaining a 
satisfactory growth for the business. 
She emphasized that her work would include developing marketing campaigns, measuring the 
effectiveness of marketing and advertising programs, organizing marketing strategies for events, 
creating brand innovation and product launch strategies, assisting companies in determining potential 
markets and product demand, and assisting companies with training and developing their marketing 
and sales teams, among other tasks. 
Although the Petitioner submitted evidence that she has received inquiries from U.S. employers 
interested in discussing job opportunities with her, both professional plans appear to reflect her intent 
to work with multiple companies in a consulting capacity as a marketing specialist. 
4 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 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. The Director determined 
the Petitioner did not establish she has a proposed endeavor that satisfies either element of the first 
prong. 
The Petitioner emphasizes that the marketing industry positively impacts U.S. businesses, consumers, 
and the economy and therefore her proposed work has substantial merit in one or more of the areas 
mentioned in Dhanasar. We find the evidence sufficient to establish the substantial merit of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. However, as discussed further below, simply working in, or starting 
a small business in the marketing field falls short of demonstrating the level of national importance 
required for this visa classification. Our focus in considering national importance is not on the industry 
itself; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposed to undertake." 
Id. 
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 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. Finally, we will consider evidence that a proposed endeavor has the potential 
to broadly enhance societal welfare, and whether it would impact a matter that a government entity 
has described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives. 
The Petitioner, through her own statements and through counsel, has made general claims regarding 
the substantial positive economic effects of her endeavor, many of which simply emphasize the 
economic implications of successful marketing. For example, the Petitioner stated in response to the 
RFE that "[m ]arketing drives a consumer economy" and explained that "a business that employs 
successful marketing strategies translates into expansion, job creation, higher tax revenue for 
governments, and eventually, overall economic growth." The Petitioner further stated that "the 
marketing industry creates jobs and wealth as businesses seek new and innovative ways to promote 
themselves and their products." While the revenue and employment generated directly and indirectly 
by the marketing industry may be important to the U.S. economy, the Petitioner must still demonstrate 
that the economic effects of her specific proposed endeavor will be "substantial." 
The Petitioner maintains that her proposed endeavor will have "ripple effects" that positively impact 
the economy, noting that the results of her work will be "widely spread" as the companies that utilize 
her services become "increasingly commercially recognized and profitable." She maintains such local 
successes will positively impact other businesses and the economy the region and ultimately "lead to 
the nation attaining overall favorable financial status." The Petitioner also generally claims that her 
proposed endeavor has "significant potential to employ U.S. workers," but does not elaborate on this 
5 
claim other than referencing job creation as a possible ripple effect of improving the financial health 
of companies that hire her in the future. 
The Petitioner's initial professional plan indicated that her ________ project would 
generate revenues of $111,000 in its first year and $169,000 by year five, with net profits increasing 
from $5,565 to $23,019. The pro forma financial statement does not indicate that the Petitioner 
anticipates paying salaries or wages to employees or contractors, thus suggesting that she would 
operate the business as its sole employee. 7 Other than this one-page financial statement, the record 
does not contain information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
attributable to the Petitioner's future work. The Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how her 
proposed endeavor to work as a marketing administrator has the significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers, nor has she stated that she will work in an economically depressed area. Even if we 
determined the initial professional plan's financial projections would likely be realized, the record 
lacks an explanation of how these forecasted figures would offer substantial economic benefits to the 
area or to her industry. 
The Petitioner cites to overall employment and revenue data for the marketing industry. However, 
absent information related to the Petitioner's specific endeavor, the record does not show that the 
benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her undertaking would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The 
Petitioner does not offer an evidentiary basis for her broad assertion that her proposed work as a 
marketing administrator or consultant "creates the opportunity to raise the standard of living for the 
United States and the world" and will be "a key factor in creating a healthy economy." 
We have also considered the Petitioner's claim that her proposed endeavor would impact an area that 
is the subject of national government initiatives. She references President Biden's 2021 Executive 
Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy. The Petitioner asserts that "[b ]y 
promoting marketing strategies, developing marketing campaigns, working as a consultant with small, 
medium and large-sized business, [she] will likewise increase their company outreach, allowing for 
said companies to gain more visibility and thus create a more competitive market." The Executive 
Order is directed at federal agencies and departments and does not address the type of private 
consulting endeavor proposed by the Petitioner. The fact that an individual works in a field that is 
generally adjacent to the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient to demonstrate the national 
importance of their work. The Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential prospective impact of 
her proposed endeavor and how it impacts those national initiatives. Here, the record does not 
establish that her consulting work will be carried out on a scale that would have a substantial 
prospective impact on U.S. market competition. 
Further, while the Petitioner claims that her proposed endeavor "will benefit U.S. society massively," 
the record does not provide adequate support for a determination that her specific proposed endeavor 
has the potential to broadly enhance societal welfare. She explains that her targeted market research 
and the marketing strategies she implements for her clients will "contribute to a society of informed 
7 According to the pro forma profit and loss statement, compensation would be paid solely to a "Mr. S-" who is not named 
elsewhere in the record. We assume this is a scrivener's error and the Petitioner herself is the intended sole employee of 
6 
consumers," entice them "to purchase products and services that enrich their lives or fill a need," and 
drive product innovation. While the Petitioner claims that successful marketing can match consumers 
with products and services that improve their quality oflife, the record does not establish that the work 
of one marketing administrator would have the claimed "massive" impacts on societal welfare, or 
sufficiently broad implications to meet the national importance requirement imposed by Dhanasar. 
The record also contains statistics citing an increasing demand for qualified marketing professionals 
in the United States and a shortage of qualified individuals to meet this demand. However, this 
shortage is likewise insufficient to demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor. A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the work of an individual 
marketing administrator or consultant nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
Further, the Petitioner has not shown that her employment as a marketing administrator would have a 
significant impact on addressing the talent shortage in the field. 
The Petitioner attributes the likely success of her proposed endeavor, in part, to her educational 
background and experience in the marketing and business development field. She also submitted 
recommendation letters from former colleagues and clients. The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and 
prior work in her field, however, relate primarily to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The 
issue here is whether the specific endeavor that she proposes to undertake in the United States has 
national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. The submitted recommendation letters, which 
praise the Petitioner's professional skills and qualifications, do not offer insight into the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor to work as a marketing administrator in the United States. They 
do not state, for example, that her past work had broad implications within her field that would be 
carried over to the proposed endeavor and would substantially benefit or advance her field. 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. While the evidence indicates that the 
Petitioner has knowledge of and practical experience with a variety of marketing techniques, it does 
not establish that her proposed endeavor has national implications within the marketing field consistent 
with Dhanasar. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter from a marketing 
professor who evaluated her eligibility under the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. In 
addressing Dhanasar' s first prong, the author significantly focuses on the economic impact of the 
marketing industry and the industry's national importance, as well as the Petitioner's prior experience 
and qualifications to work in the industry. While the professor indicates that the United States would 
benefit from the Petitioner's expertise and skills as marketing administrator, they do not sufficiently 
address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, its prospective substantial economic impact, or 
any broader implications of the Petitioner's work in the field. 
We observe that users 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 (eomm'r. 1988). However, users is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter of 
7 
D-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 and probative value with respect to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
For the reasons provided above, 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 Dhanasar. 
Accordingly, the record does not establish that she merits, as a matter of discretion, the requested 
national interest waiver. Since this determination is dispositive of the appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments relating to her eligibility 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). 
IV. REQUIRED INITIAL EVIDENCE 
Finally, although not addressed in the Director's final decision, we note the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)( 4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, "[t]o apply for the [ national interest] exemption the petitioner 
must submit Form ETA 750B, Statement of Qualifications of Alien, in duplicate." Alternatively, 
USCIS will accept parts J, K, and L of Form ETA 9089, Application for Permanent Employment 
Certification. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The Petitioner did not provide this evidence at the time of filing. In a request for evidence (RFE), the 
Director advised the Petitioner that she must submit an original labor certification application with the 
employee-specific portions completed and containing her original signature and the signature of any 
preparer. The Petitioner's response to the RFE did not include this required initial evidence and for 
this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8)(ii) (providing that 
USCIS in its discretion may deny a benefit request for lack of initial evidence) and 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b )( 14) ( stating that failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material line of 
inquiry shall be grounds for denying the benefit request). 
V. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner established 
her eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. Further, because 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. Finally, the Petitioner did not provide initial evidence required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(4)(ii) and the petition cannot be approved for this additional reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8