dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 25, 2024 In Re: 30626552 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a marketing and communications specialist, 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 that the Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. 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, 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Petitioner is a marketing and communications specialist. He submitted a diploma and transcripts 
for his 2011 degree in marketing from the I in Ecuador; 
along with an academic evaluation that states his degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in 
marketing. In addition, the Petitioner submitted an employment letter that establishes five years of 
progressive experience in the specialty. The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree and we agree. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
1. Substantial Merit 
The first 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. The Petitioner states his proposed endeavor is to open his own marketing consultancy 
company, "[t]o support U.S. businesses in enhancing their brand image and expanding their digital 
presence. By doing so, I aim to strengthen their market positioning, increase brand equity, boost sales, 
and drive revenue growth, ultimately contributing to the reinforcement of the U.S. economy." The 
record contains industry articles and reports on the importance of small businesses, the economic 
impact of advertising and marketing, and government initiatives related to the Petitioner's industry. 
We conclude that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
2. National Importance 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Id. The Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision, "[c]ontains instances of a 
misunderstanding and misapplication of law that go beyond harmless error and reach the levels of 
abuse of discretion." Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Director properly analyzed the 
evidence to evaluate the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of evidence and the Petitioner did 
1 See 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 is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance element of Dhanasar's 
first prong, as discussed below. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
The Petitioner emphasizes on appeal, "[t]he provided articles indeed demonstrate an interest from the 
United States in harnessing the Petitioner's knowledge and expertise towards the economic growth of 
U.S. businesses." In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of 
the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on, "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The 
industry reports and articles in the record show the U.S. government's interest in industries related to 
the proposed endeavor and while we recognize the value and importance of the industry, working in 
the industry is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Here, the 
Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry to establish the national importance 
of his proposed endeavor. For example, the Petitioner submitted a Fact Sheet entitled, "Biden-Harris 
Administration Expands Access to Capital and Support for Small Businesses." While this shows 
government efforts to support small businesses, it does not establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Although the industry reports and articles provide good background 
information and the U.S. government's interest in the industry, without sufficient documentary 
evidence of the specific proposed endeavor's broader impact on the industry, the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor does not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
Further, the Petitioner's personal statement regarding the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor also focuses on the impact of the industry and not his specific proposed endeavor's 
prospective impact. He asserts that, "[m]arketing is a key driver for U.S. economic growth," 
"[m ]arketing is an important generator of employment in the United States," "[m ]arketing plays a key 
role in promoting tourism in the United States," and, "[ t ]he impact of marketing on small and medium 
businesses is significant." He then lists various government initiatives related to the industry of his 
endeavor; however, he does not specifically discuss his specific proposed endeavor and its broader 
impact. The Petitioner states his proposed endeavor, "[w ]ill serve to benefit defined U.S. goals and 
promote national initiatives at the local and regional levels. The prospective advancement of my 
proposed professional endeavors will favor and contribute to the country's economic prosperity, DP, 
and the quality of life of U.S. citizens." However, this does not detail precisely how his proposed 
endeavor will contribute to economic prosperity or quality of life. As above, his personal statement 
emphasizes the national importance of the industry in which the Petitioner seeks to work but does not 
further support the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar states, a proposed endeavor could rise to the level of national importance with, "significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers" or "other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." Id at 890. In addition, a proposed endeavor, "may have national 
importance because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. at 889. The Petitioner contends that his 
proposed endeavor will, "drive revenue growth, strengthen marketing positioning, boost sales and 
further the digital presence of U.S. businesses to have a clear impact on the nation's economy." He 
states that his focus will be on small to medium sized businesses in the state of Florida, with some 
businesses being in the tourism industry. However, the record does not establish that his proposed 
3 
endeavor will impact the industry more broadly or have substantial pos1t1ve economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area to impact more than his prospective clients. 
The record contains articles on the impact the marketing industry can have on small businesses and 
the economy; however, it does not establish the broad implications of the specific proposed endeavor 
outside of his prospective clients. 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. Dhanasar 26 I&N Dec. at 893. The Director concluded that the evidence, "remains 
insufficient to show that the petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will have broader implications 
within its field or will result in benefits beyond that of his self-owned consultancy company and its 
immediate clients, rising to a level of substantial positive economic effects, or the broad enhancement 
of societal welfare." The Petitioner states in his proposed endeavor statement that he will promote 
innovation and circulate "these new ideas," but does not specify the new ideas and how they impact 
the field more broadly. Therefore, we agree that the record does not establish the scale of his work 
would rise to the level of national importance or that there are any advances or improvements in the 
field attributable to the Petitioner. As the record does not establish the broader impact of the 
Petitioner's specific endeavor, we conclude that the record does not establish the proposed endeavor 
will have broader implications beyond his prospective clients. 
The Petitioner addresses the proposed endeavor's lack of potential to employ U.S. workers by stating 
that it is, "[j]ust an example of a factor that may be considered. It is not inherently necessary to meet 
each of the possible evidentiary examples provided in the precedent decision in order to prove that a 
proposed endeavor is of national importance." While this may be true, the Petitioner must establish 
that the proposed endeavor is of national importance by a preponderance of the evidence which the 
record has not otherwise established as discussed above. Matter ofChawathe, 25 T&N Dec. at 375-76 
While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered the 
record in its entirety. As the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the 
identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C­
' 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the 
applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
therefore conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner has not established that he 
is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4