dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 19, 2024 In Re: 32193975 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a marketing specialist, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the 
Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, he 
had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would 
be 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 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. Because 
this classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate 
showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 
thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner demonstrates 
that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the 
noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, indicate 
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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a marketing specialist. The Director found 
that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
remaining issue to be determined 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. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed 
endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. The Director also determined the Petitioner did 
not establish that his proposed endeavor has broader implications, has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers, and that it would broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment. 
Furthermore, the Director found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm 
1 See Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
whether his proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director's decision contains "numerous conclusions of both 
law and fact." The Petitioner further argues the Director "committed significant errors in denying the 
petition." The Petitioner maintains that he submitted sufficient evidence in response to the Director's 
request for evidence to demonstrate the proposed endeavor's potential prospective national or even 
global impact. 
While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed the record and have 
considered the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest waiver. The Petitioner seeks to work as a 
marketing specialist. He asserts that his focus will include strategic communication planning, graphic 
design, brand management, digital marketing, and team management, specifically tailored for the 
fashion industry. The record includes a professional plan, an opinion letter, and recommendation 
letters, as well as letters of intent. The opinion letter's author discusses the Petitioner's professional 
experience and emphasizes the importance of digital marketing. The author states that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor is of national importance because "marketing has acquired an important place for 
the economic development of a whole country. It has also become a necessity for attaining the object 
of social welfare." The author also maintains that the Petitioner's extensive experience and skills as 
an experienced marketing manager will greatly benefit the United States. Although an individual's 
experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, they are misplaced in the 
context of the first Dhanasar prong. The Petitioner's professional experience is material to 
Dhanasar 's second prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed 
endeavor-but they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, 
proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-91. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 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." 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 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. Here, though we 
acknowledge the Petitioner's evidence and assertions, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown 
his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employers to enhance societal welfare 
on a broader scale indicative of national importance. 
The Petitioner emphasizes his professional experience such as his marketing, event planning, and 
leadership skills and details his plans to leverage advanced tools and methodologies in order to boost 
sales, performance, review, and impact the U.S. marketing field. He argues that his proposed endeavor 
has national importance due its significant impact on the U.S. economy, job creation, and revenue 
generation across multiple sectors. However, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and 
evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of 
national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise 
3 
to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. 
at 893. Here, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's impact will be 
nationally important. 
The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself, not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must 
establish that his specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. The 
Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States. 
Specifically, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his specific endeavor stands to provide 
substantial economic benefits in the United States. While the Petitioner claims that his work as a 
marketing specialist will have "broader implications and positive economic benefits that reach beyond 
employers and clients to benefit the country," the record does not support the Petitioner's general 
assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility of those assertions. The Petitioner 
has not established his endeavor will have broader implications as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 
890. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his undertaking has implications beyond the 
companies and individuals he elects to work with to impact the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising 
to the level of national importance. Nor has the Petitioner shown that his proposed endeavor has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for the country. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not indicate that the benefits to 
the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the 
level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner argues that his personalized approach to identifying and understanding the target 
audience for U.S. fashion companies will boost customer engagement, brand loyalty, conversion rates, 
and sales, ultimately elevating the U.S. marketing industry. The Petitioner further contends that his 
proposed endeavor has significant potential to impact individual businesses and the broader U.S. 
marketing landscape. The Petitioner nonetheless has not sufficiently explained how he will positively 
impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move the U.S. economy on a broad 
scale rising to the level of national importance. The Petitioner additionally has not sufficiently 
explained how helping the individual companies and clients that would hire him would result in an 
impact on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor 
has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such 
claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. 
See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding 
his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of 
4 
which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-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 
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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5