dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 12, 2024 In Re: 34941197 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a marketing entrepreneur, 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. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner merited a waiver of the job offer and labor certification requirements for 
EB-2 classification. 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. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 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; 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
• 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 
The Petitioner seeks to come to the United States to continue her career in the advertising and 
marketing industry. She states that she has extensive knowledge and experience of the Brazilian 
advertising market that would be beneficial to U.S. organizations seeking to expand into Brazil. She 
states that her plan in the United States is to "enter U.S. companies" and "provide expert advice and 
guidance" regarding the Brazilian and Latin American markets. She argues that her proposed 
endeavor is nationally important because the marketing industry stimulates additional economic 
activity and contributes to increased job opportunities for American workers. In support of her 
proposed endeavor the Petitioner provided a professional plan, expert opinion letters, industry reports 
and articles regarding the advertising and marketing industry. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) seeking additional documentation of her eligibility 
for a waiver of the job offer and labor certification requirements for EB-2 classification. The Petitioner 
provided a new business plan for her own start-up company, letters of intent from prospective clients, 
articles regarding American businesses working in Brazil and additional industry related reports and 
articles. She further provided evidence of her extensive experience and awards in the marketing 
industry in Brazil and evidence of her significant achievements in the field. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that she met any of the three prongs of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director did not 
appropriately weight the submitted evidence and erred as a matter of policy by using their own novel 
interpretation of the Dhanasar framework. 
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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that her proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance. 2 She further argues that the Director's focus on the broader implications of her endeavor 
is against the spirit of the Dhansar framework because it focuses too much on the national or regional 
implications of the Petitioner's business. 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." See id. 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 
2 The Petitioner submitted supplemental documentation for her appeal in January 2024. Regulations preclude us from 
considering any evidence submitted outside of the appeal window. 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(2)(i) 
2 
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. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner's specific endeavor was to continue working in the advertising and 
marketing field for a U.S. company. In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner 
stated that she intends to create her own company to provide marketing services to various businesses . 
In the business plan provided in response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated she would invest $1000 for 
start-up costs. She further stated that her business would price their product based on performance 
with a "success fee." She stated that she intends to target small- to medium-sized companies in the 
U.S. that seek to enter the Brazilian market. The Petitioner included several letters from prospective 
future clients seeking to retain the services of her organization. However , the Petitioner 's business 
plan did not contain any revenue forecasts, staffing models, or financial forecasts to establish the actual 
economic impact of the proposed endeavor both within her own organization and in the economy more 
broadly. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. Although the 
Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide valuable advertising and marketing services for 
her future employers and clients, s he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to 
demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. Additionally, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond her proposed clientele to impact the advertising and marketing field or U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she propose s to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for the nation. While we acknowledg e the submission of industry-related articles and 
government reports, neither the Petitioner nor her company were specifically mentioned in these 
articles. The articles analyze the importance of Brazil and United States trade relations and the overall 
health of the marketing and advertising industry. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding 
any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not 
show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's advertising 
and marketing projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor does not meet the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her 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 her eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
As 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. 
3 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4