dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 15900602 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 22, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur and global marketing specialist , seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job off er requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that he is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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. 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. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available . .. to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]heAttomey General may, when theAttomey 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasarstates that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national 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 ofa labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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 foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she 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; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In perf01ming 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national 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 foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCJS, No. 1 7-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USC IS' decision to grant or 
deny a nationalinterestwaiverto be discretionaiy in nature). 
2 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
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 agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
Regarding his claim of eligibility under Dhanasar' s first prong, the Petitioner explained that he gained 
expertise in digital signage technology during his employment as a marketing specialist withl I I I He stated that his former position enabled him to develop a global marketing plan and 
positioned him to start his own digital signage company -I ~ which he claims is "a 
leader in the digital signage market." 4 The Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor is to expand 
I lin the UnitedStatesandintemationallybyoffering"stateofthe art hardware, software 
and service" to be used by retail stores, government agencies, and professional firms. The Petitioner also 
provided a 2014 report from the University o ~---------~discussing the benefits of 
electronic message boards for retail businesses and communities in terms of increased revenue and 
public service messaging. The record therefore shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to 
expand its digital signage business and offer those capabilities to public and private enterprises in the 
United States and internationally has substantial merit. 
Likewise, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that his endeavor has national 
importance, which focuses on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake," rather than the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will 
work. 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 paiiicular 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. 
In the matter at hand, the Petitioner claims that he is a "leading [ m ]arketing [ s lpecialist" and has a "broad 
and brilliant business background" as aresultofhis "manyyears"workingf011 I The 
Petitioner's experience in his field relates to the second prong oftheDhanasar framework, which "shifts 
the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here, however, is 
whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under 
Dhanasar's first prong. To that end, the Petitioner has stated that his company has the potential to 
3 SeeDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Petitioner did not expand on the basis formakingthis claim orprovide evidence of his company's placement with 
respect to others in the digital sign age market. 
3 
increase employee productivity, help the environment by reducing the amount of paper used, and 
positively impact the economy by increasing profits for businesses who use electronic sig]lage. The 
~er also provided a business plan in which he stated that the "primary objective" ofl I 
L___J is to "collaborate with managerial authorities of each business companies [sic] and government 
offices to reform poor environment of public spaces," while also "increas[ing] revenue growth by selling 
ad space to advertisers with [sic] each geographic venue" as a "secondary objective." Aside from these 
objectives, the business plan also describes a five-year hiring plan based ona "Compound Annual Growth 
Rate," which projects that the company will have a seven-person staff in 2018, expanding to 48 employees 
in 2022 , and potentially growing to 3 30 employees by 2027 if the projected rate of growth is sustained 
moving forward. Although the Petitioner included an organizational chart showing the five-year staffmg 
expansion , it has not provided evidence to substantiate the projected rate of growth. 
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. Although the 
Petitioner's statements reflec t his intention to expand his company and to offer the benefit s of 
electronic signage to future clients in the private and public sectors , he has not provided evidence to 
demo nstrate that the pro spective impact of his propo sed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence . See MatterofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). InDhanasarwe 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. Here, we conclude that the record does not 
show that the Petitioner 's proposed endea vor stand s to suffi ciently extend beyond his company, 
business partnerships , and clientele to impact the marketing field more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, aside from the projected hires indicated in the business plan , the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation . Specifically, he 
has not shown that his company' s future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide 
substantial economic benefits in North Carolina, where the company is headquartered , or in the United 
States. While the sales forecasts forl !indicate that this company has growth potentiai 
the Petitioner has not explained how the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach 1he 
level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. We also note 
that on appeal the Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor has national importance because "it has 
a potential prospective [to] impact on improving the medical field." However , the Petitioner has not 
offered evidence to support this claim, which he made for this first time on appeal. A petitioner may 
not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements. See Matter of Izummi , 22 I&N Dec. 169, 1 76 (Assoc. Comm 'r 1998). 
In addition , the Petitioner asserts thatl l"has engaged several qualified individuals and 
firms" to carry out "specialized" services, such as installing digital screens and handling creative video 
production, editing, and layout. However, he h11s not provided evidence that the area wherq I I lwill operate is economically depressed , that he would utilize a significant population of 
workers in that area, or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial 
economic benefit through employment levels or business activity , even if the projected hires and 
revenues are realized. Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that any increases in employment or 
4 
investment attributable to his company's operations stand to substantially affect economic activity or 
tax revenue in North Carolina or nationally. Accordingly, 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 substantial merit or 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. Further analysis of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has notmettherequisitefirstprongof theDhanasar 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, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5