dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 4, 2023 In Re: 28819204 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a marketing manager, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional, but further determined that he did not demonstrate his 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. 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 ofChristo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal as the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national 
importance. Since this issue is dispositive, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the remaining 
issues. 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 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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. 
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 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, stated she intended to continue her career as a marketing 
professional in the United States through a Florida based company she had established, F-S-G-, LLC. 
The Petitioner asserted her company would operate "in the gun and ammunition markets," selling 
"firearms, ammunition, and related accessories for sports, hunting, self-defense and other practical 
shooting purposes." The Petitioner indicated the company would use Brazil as a "test market" and 
incentivize multiple economic activities, significantly increasing business revenues, and therefore 
contribute to the U.S. economy. The Petitioner explained the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as follows: 
My proposed endeavor will lead to enhanced national and international visibility 
regarding U.S. business industry functions, thus improving the nation's market 
productivity and global commercial appeal. Even more, by marketing, selling, and 
exporting firearms and related products to abroad markets, I will identify viable 
opportunities for business development and business diversification via cross-border 
contracts, primarily stemming from Latin America - specifically Brazil. This will 
incentivize cross-border transactions between the high-powered economies, increase 
the influx of foreign direct investments (FDI) by foreign consumers in the nation, 
contribute to the generation of jobs for U.S. workers, and spur other substantial 
economic effects for the benefit of the United States. 
The Petitioner stated her company would maintain purchases and business through an online store, 
allowing international clients to browse and purchase U.S. firearms related products and indicated she 
was "currently negotiating agreements with U.S. partners that will support the company in the export 
process." The Petitioner asserted her company would also launch a gun and accessories manufacturing 
endeavor and patent a variety of products to be manufactured in the United States. The Petitioner 
stated her company planned on hiring two employees during its first year of operation and six by year 
two, paying $88,997 in taxes by its fifth year of operation. 
The Director later issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating that the Petitioner did not submit 
sufficient evidence to establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be of national importance, 
specifically that it would have national or even global implications within the marketing field. The 
Director determined the provided evidence did not demonstrate that the impact of the Petitioner's 
proposed business would have substantial economic effects. As such, the Director requested that the 
1 See also 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 
Petitioner submit a detailed description of the proposed endeavor, why it is of national importance, 
and documentary evidence supporting its national importance. The Director further indicated the 
Petitioner should provide evidence to establish the endeavor's potential prospective impact, such as 
documentation to substantiate how it would have national or global implications in the field, have 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have other substantial economic effects, broadly 
enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, or impact a matter that a government entity 
has described as having national importance. 
In response, the Petitioner stated she had been working for F-S-G-, LLC as a marketing and sales 
manager since 2021 2 responsible for "elaborating and implementing a marketing and communication 
plan; creating and executing online media campaign; video production on social media; co-op 
campaigns with main manufacturers ... [and] developing long-term business relationships with 
partners, distributors, and clients." The Petitioner indicated that her goal was to bring clients from 
Brazil to participate in events, trade fairs, training, and practical shooting competitions in the United 
States. 
Later in the same RFE response letter, the Petitioner stated that she planned on developing and 
expanding another company A-E- USA LLC, "a company that will serve U.S. businesses by providing 
(1) Keratine, (2) Intensive Care, (3) Beauty Maintenance Kit, and (4) Hair Perfume all based on a 
product direct sales revenue model." The Petitioner again asserted this endeavor would attract foreign 
direct investment "that will transform into new jobs, investments, and business opportunities, which 
will contribute to numerous sectors of the national interest." The Petitioner emphasized her marketing 
expertise and skills, stating that "her measured marketing adaptations, reflect her proposed endeavor's 
substantial merit and national importance, as not only has she prompted company growth, but her 
tactics have led to national and international economic developments." The Petitioner pointed to the 
impact of foreign direct investment on the U.S. economy and job creation generated by foreign-owned 
companies operating in the United States. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted another professional plan and statement where she reiterated her 
plans regarding F-S-G-, LLC, the company she asserted operated in the firearm and ammunition 
market. However, the Petitioner also submitted a business plan specific to A-E- USA LLC, dated in 
December 2020, setting forth plans to import and distribute "high-quality cosmetic products," more 
specifically the "multi-billion dollar vegan cosmetics market." The Petitioner projected that this 
company would generate the payment of at least $390,000 in wages and salaries and lead to the 
employment of 12 U.S. workers during its first five years. The Petitioner also provided a 2021 IRS 
Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income related to F-S-G-, LLC reflecting that it earned 
$204,606 revenue and paid no wages and salaries during that year. Further, the Petitioner submitted 
invoices related to this company reflecting the purchase of firearms, ammunition, and related 
accessories. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish the substantial merit of 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, noting that she did not provide specific insight into what she 
intended to do as a marketing manager in her field. The Director also determined the Petitioner did 
2 The petitioner was filed in July 2020, the RFE was issued in July 2022, and the RFE response was received in December 
2022. The current appeal was filed in May 2023. 
3 
not demonstrate the national importance of her proposed endeavor, emphasizing she did not specify 
how her proposed endeavor would improve U.S. market productivity and global appeal as claimed. 
The Director further pointed to the Petitioner's business plan related to the proposed firearms business 
and concluded that this did not establish its economic impact on the firearms industry more broadly. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again points to her proposed cosmetics company, A-E- USA LLC, asserting 
that it would impact the cosmetic industry by generating $390,000 in wages within its first five years 
as well as the employment of 12 U.S. workers. The Petitioner contends this proposed business will 
positively impact job creation in "underutilized areas" and "bring investments to the region," including 
"attracting FDI that will transform into new jobs, investments, and business opportunities, which will 
contribute to numerous sectors of the national interest." The Petitioner points to industry reports and 
articles submitted to the record, including one discussing research from Forbes that marketing 
investments and assets have a major impact on enterprise value and "can contribute over 50% of firm 
value." The Petitioner asserts that "nearly all industries require steep marketing strategies, which, in 
turn, directly benefits the nation's economy and overall production levels." The Petitioner asserts that 
her "measured adaptations, reflect her proposed endeavor's substantial merit and national importance, 
as not only her prompted company growth, but have led to national and international economic 
developments." 
The Petitioner also emphasizes her 17 years of professional experience in marketing and business 
development, asserting this would "allow her to provide any U.S. firm or company more rapidly and 
efficiently with a competitive advantage, regardless of sector or industry." The Petitioner also notes 
articles she submitted to the record discussing the economic impact of immigrant entrepreneurs, such 
as 5.9 million U.S. jobs generated by foreign-owned companies, 2.4 million immigrant entrepreneurs 
in the United States, and over $65.5 billion in income generated from these immigrant businesses. The 
Petitioner contends that the United States "would benefit from investing in well-versed professionals 
such as the [Petitioner]," emphasizing her knowledge and skills, and her ability "to advise corporations 
about potential opportunities for business development and sales expansion, as well as effective 
market strategies and initiatives." 
As a preliminary matter, although we acknowledge that the Director concluded that the Petitioner did 
not establish the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor, we decline to analyze and hereby reserve 
this issue. See INSv. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 
n.7. Here, since the issue is dispositive, we will only analyze whether the Petitioner established that 
the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 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 Matter ofDhanasar, 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. 
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. The Petitioner 
4 
submitted a variety of proposed endeavors thereby leaving substantial uncertainty as to their potential 
prospective impact. For instance, in support of the petition, the Petitioner exclusively emphasized her 
proposed company focused on the distribution and sale of U.S. firearms, ammunition, and related 
accessories in Brazil. However, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner discussed not only the proposed 
firearms business, but also a company proposing to sell cosmetics. Now, on appeal, the Petitioner 
again points to the proposed cosmetics company, but also appears to emphasize the importance of her 
apparent provision of professional marketing services for various U.S. companies. For example, the 
Petitioner states on appeal that she would "advise corporations about potential opportunities for 
business development and sales expansion, as well as effective market strategies and initiatives." 
Therefore, it is not sufficiently clear whether the Petitioner asserts that her proposed endeavor would 
be of national importance in the firearms industry, the cosmetics industry, or the marketing field 
generally, and given this ambiguity, there is substantial question these various endeavors would lead 
to a national impact on all these fields. Since the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is left ambiguous, so 
is its potential prospective impact. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities in the 
record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In addition, the Petitioner has set forth ambiguous and unsupported claims with respect to the proposed 
national impact of her varying proposed endeavors. For example, as noted by the Director, the 
Petitioner asserted that her proposed firearms export business would "lead to enhanced national and 
international visibility regarding U.S. business functions," improve "the nation's market productivity 
and global commercial appeal," and "identify viable opportunities for business development and 
business diversification." However, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain what U.S. business 
functions would be impacted by her proposed endeavor, what market productivity and international 
visibility would be enhanced, or business development and diversification would be identified, and 
led to national impact. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner discussed marketing and communications plans, online media 
campaigns, video production and social media strategies, and "co-op campaigns" she implemented 
with respect to its firearms distribution company and partners, distributors, and clients it had developed 
relationships. However, again, these marketing plans, campaigns, strategies, partners, distributors, 
and clients are left explained, unidentified, and unsupported. In fact, these claimed business activities 
appear limited, as the Petitioner provided a 2021 IRS Form 1065 reflecting that her firearms company 
only earned $204,606 revenue and paid no wages and salaries during that year, leaving question as to 
the potential national impact of this proposed endeavor on a firearms industry the Petitioner states 
accounted for $52 billion in revenue and employed over 312,000 annually. It is also noteworthy that 
the Petitioner asserted that it proposed firearms business would lead to the employment of only eight 
employees after five years, again leaving significant question to its national impact on the industry. 
Likewise, the Petitioner also discussed plans to manufacture firearms and related products, and to 
secure patents related thereto, but submitted little explanation and evidence to corroborate these 
assertions. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Similarly, on appeal, the Petitioner points to her proposed cosmetics company, asserting that it would 
impact the cosmetic industry by generating $390,000 in wages within its first five years as well as the 
employment of 12 U.S. workers. The Petitioner also indicated in its cosmetics company business plan 
that the cosmetics industry accounted for over $26 billion in revenue in 2020, again leaving uncertainty 
5 
as to how her company would have a national impact on the industry given the provided hiring and 
wage projections. Likewise, the Petitioner contends that the proposed cosmetics business will 
positively impact job creation in "underutilized areas" and "bring investments to the region," including 
"attracting FDI that will transform into new jobs, investments, and business opportunities, which will 
contribute to numerous sectors of the national interest." The Petitioner yet again does not explain in 
detail or document how this proposed business would impact "underutilized areas," "bring investments 
to the region" and "attract FDI," nor does it identify the "numerous sectors of the national interest" it 
would prospectively impact. Id. 
On appeal, the Petitioner appears to again shift the focus on her endeavor to her apparent provision of 
professional marketing services generally in the U.S. market, noting her seventeen years of experience 
in marketing and business development and asserting this would "allow her to provide any U.S. firm 
or company more rapidly and efficiently with a competitive advantage, regardless of sector or 
industry." The Petitioner also states that her ability "to advise corporations about potential 
opportunities for business development and sales expansion, as well as effective market strategies and 
initiatives." However, the Petitioner's experience and knowledge in and of itself is not relevant to 
demonstrating national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor but is only probative to 
whether she is well positioned to advance the endeavor under the second prong of Dhanasar. 
See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 892-93. Therefore, we do not find the emphasis on her 
skills and experience on appeal convincing in establishing the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor. 
Lastly, the Petitioner also discusses on appeal the economic impact of immigrant entrepreneurs, such 
as approximately 5.9 million U.S. jobs generated by foreign-owned companies, 2.4 million immigrant 
entrepreneurs in the United States, and over $65.5 billion in income generated from these immigrant 
businesses. Again, it is not clear how the Petitioner's ambiguous and rather limited business plans 
would have a national impact on employment and revenues and substantially impact the contribution 
of immigrant entrepreneurs on a national scale. The Petitioner further points to an industry article 
discussing research from Forbes that marketing investments and assets have a major impact on 
enterprise value and "can contribute over 50% of firm value." The Petitioner asserts that "nearly all 
industries require steep marketing strategies, which, in tum, directly benefits the nation's economy 
and overall production levels." Even if we accept these premises set forth in the article, it is not clear 
how such general observations about investing in marketing demonstrate the potential prospective 
impact of the various proposed endeavors submitted by the Petitioner throughout the record. 
The Petitioner's statements reflect a vague intention to launch potential business in different industries 
and to provide professional marketing services. However, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient 
information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her various proposed 
endeavors such that they rise to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar we detennined 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. As noted by the 
Director, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond her clientele, who were not made sufficiently clear through her assertions and the submitted 
evidence. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor would have a broad 
influence commensurate with national importance. 
6 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7