dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
In Re: 28282465 Date: OCT. 3, 2023 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner is a marketing manager who 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the 
Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as an advanced degree professional, the 
record did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would 
be in the national interest. Specifically, applying the three-prong analytical framework set forth in 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), the Director concluded that the Petitioner: 
(1) did not establish that her endeavor has national importance, 1 (2) did not demonstrate that she is 
well-positioned to advance the endeavor, and (3) did not show that on balance, waiving the job offer 
requirement would benefit the United States. Id. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that her 
proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, she did not meet the national importance 
requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
884. Because this identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining Dhanasar 
prongs. 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). 
In denying the petition, the Director pointed out that the Petitioner's specific endeavor, rather than the 
field or profession, is the focus when addressing the issue of national importance in the context of a 
1 The Director concluded that the Petitioner 's endeavor has substantial merit. 
national interest waiver. Despite acknowledging the national importance of the field of 
entrepreneurship, the Director determined that the Petitioner's endeavor to operate a startup marketing 
consultancy would not result in broad economic implications, such as having significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers, particularly in an economically depressed area. The Director also 
acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of a business plan and an intent to hire letter but found that 
neither demonstrates the endeavor's potential to create substantial positive impact for the regional or 
national economy. Rather, the Director highlighted the limited impact of the Petitioner's endeavor, 
noting that it would primarily benefit the Petitioner, her company, and her prospective clients. In sum, 
the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her proposed would more broadly 
impact the region or nation such that would rise to the level of having national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a legal brief along with an evaluation of her credentials and articles 
about global and international marketing. However, neither the Petitioner's credentials nor the articles 
address her specific endeavor or establish that the endeavor has national importance. 
In the legal brief, the Petitioner incorrectly refers to "the standard of national interest" and broadly 
argues that requiring "an immigrant to demonstrate 'global implications"' would cause detrimental 
impact to "immigration in the United States." As indicated in the Director's decision, to determine 
whether a petitioner merits a national interest waiver, we apply a three-prong analytical framework, 
where the first prong is comprised of two elements: substantial merit and national importance. See 
Matter ofDhanasar 26 I&N Dec. at 889. As previously noted, the Petitioner's endeavor was found 
to have substantial merit, but not national importance; despite the Petitioner's reference, there is no 
"national interest" standard. 
We farther note that no petitioner is required to demonstrate that their endeavor has "global 
implications," as claimed on appeal. While we consider "national or even global implications within 
a particular field" as one indicator of national importance, the key focus of the national importance 
element is an endeavor's "broader implications," which may be demonstrated even if that endeavor 
focuses on one geographic area. Id. In other words, as stated in Dhanasar, we do not focus on "the 
geographic breadth of the endeavor," but rather the breadth of an endeavor's implications. Id. In the 
matter at hand, we find that the Director correctly determined that the breadth of implications of the 
Petitioner's endeavor is limited to the Petitioner, her company, and her prospective clients. And 
although the Petitioner refers to "an established list that USCIS has included as requirement [sic] to 
the national importance criteria," she does not elaborate on the contents of such a list or establish that 
such a list exists. As stated above, we mentioned "national or even global implications within a 
particular field" as merely one indicator of national importance; nowhere, however, did we state in 
Dhanasar that this indicator is part of "an established list." Likewise, an endeavor's "significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers" or its potential for "other substantial positive economic effects" are 
also indicators of national importance, but like the national or global implications characteristic, these 
are not requirements under the Dhanasar framework. Id. at 890. 
Lastly, the Petitioner vaguely states that the Director "has not implemented the right policy" and 
applied "the wrong standard without notice." Except where a different standard is specified by law, 
the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing immigration benefit requests. 
See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 7 5 (AAO 201 0); see also Matter ofMartinez, 21 I&N Dec. 
1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); Matter ofSoo Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151,152 (BIA 1965). Accordingly, the 
2 
"preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing national interest waiver petitions. 
See generally I USCIS Policy Manual, E.4(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While the 
Petitioner asserts that she has provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate her eligibility for the EB-2 
classification and a national interest waiver, she does not farther explain or identify a specific instance 
in which the Director applied a standard of proof other than the preponderance of evidence in denying 
this petition. 
In light of the evidentiary deficiencies discussed above, the record does not establish the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent 
decision, thus leading us to conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national 
interest waiver. Accordingly, we adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the 
national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 
(BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of 
adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that 
has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit 
courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding the two remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3