dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 29, 2024 In Re: 32195711 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chief executive officer (CEO) of a marketing business, 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 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 had not 
established that the Petitioner qualified for the requested classification and that a discretionary 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 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&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 I&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 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
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, 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 operate his company, I I which will provide marketing services 
to small business owners. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding 
that the Petitioner did not establish that he qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability. 
A. EB-2 Classification 
With respect to the underlying EB-2 classification, the Petitioner contends that the Director imposed 
"novel substantive and evidentiary requirements beyond those set 
forth in the regulations, and failed 
to review all of the evidence in the record." The Petitioner clarifies that he is not seeking to be 
classified as an individual of exceptional ability but rather as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, and further argues that he provided sufficient evidence to establish this classification. 
The resolution of the issues pertaining to the Petitioner's eligibility for a waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus of a labor certification, under the Dhanasar analytical framework are dispositive 
2 
of this appeal. For that reason, we will reserve consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility for the 
requested EB-2 category. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need 
not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter 
of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal in 
removal proceedings where an applicant did not otherwise qualify for relief). 
B. The Proposed Endeavor's Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to operate a business that will specialize 
in marketing services for small business owners and will focus on digital marketing services such as 
content creation, traffic generation, and social media management. The Petitioner states that he will 
offer training, seminars, and courses on business development and growth strategies for entrepreneurs, 
both in person and online. The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit. The Director determined, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed 
endeavor is of national importance, that he was well-positioned to advance it, and that, on balance, it 
would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erroneously denied the petition and overlooked 
evidence that demonstrates the proposed endeavor's national importance. For the reasons provided 
below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor and therefore is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. While 
we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
As previously noted, 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 Petitioner asserts that he intends to target small and medium-sized U.S. businesses across various 
sectors that require advanced digital marketing and branding services to enhance and streamline their 
sales and marketing processes. The Petitioner argues he submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate 
that the proposed endeavor "stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to impact his field of 
digital marketing more broadly at the level commensurate with national importance." To evaluate 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to 
evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. While the 
Petitioner claims that his endeavor has significant potential to impact the U.S. economy overall, 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 to the level of having national importance because 
they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, the record does not include adequate 
corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader 
implications in his field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive economic 
effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance. 
3 
The Petitioner argues that his proposed endeavor will create jobs and generate tax revenue and will 
impact a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance. The Petitioner 
also relies on industry reports and articles to establish why his proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. Although we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the submitted evidence, the 
record does not establish how the proposed endeavor will have broader implications beyond 
benefitting the Petitioner's clients and companies he elects to work with. Moreover, in determining 
national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which 
the individual will work. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. 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, the 
Petitioner 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, through his business plan, claims that his company will hire 20 direct employees by year 
five as well as gamer net profit of $107,784. Further, the Petitioner submits a Regional Input-Output 
Modeling System (RIMS 11) that projected that in the next five years his company will create 174 direct 
and indirect jobs and will generate total revenue of $26,652,603.55. The Petitioner, however, does not 
provide sufficient detail regarding these projections' bases, or adequately explain how these staffing 
targes and revenue forecasts will be realized. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient 
evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his 
future work, the record does not show that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting 
from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner maintains that his proposed endeavor will not only benefit his direct clients but also 
stimulate growth in other U.S. communities. However, 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). He has not done so. 
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 also 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 which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 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). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that he has not established that 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