dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 13, 2023 In Re: 28093156 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a marketing manager in the health consultancy field, seeks second preference 
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. 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 although the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional, he had not established that a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 1 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 of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
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 l&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 discretion2, 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. 
1 An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a 
bachelor's degree. A United States 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). 
2 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). 
The Petitioner proposes to offer his expertise as a marketing manager in the health consultancy field 
"to assist U.S. companies, businesses, and organizations in need of branding, re-organization, and 
management to optimize and increase profit through growth within their industry market or expand 
into other markets." 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
In her decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit, 
and we agree. Turning to the national importance of his endeavor, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not give due regard to his professional plan 
and statement; letters of recommendation; and industry reports and articles. In addition, the Petitioner 
relies, in part, on his over 18 years of experience in marketing and sales in the health consultancy field 
to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. However, the Petitioner's expertise 
and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national importance 
of his proposed work. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's letters of recommendation from his professional acquaintances. The 
authors praise the Petitioner's abilities in the marketing and sales consulting sector, and the personal 
attributes that make him an asset to the workplace. While the recommendation letters evidence the 
high regard the Petitioner's professional acquaintances have for the Petitioner and his work, none of 
them offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how such 
impact would extend beyond his clients. As such, the letters are not probative of the Petitioner's 
eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar. 
Through industry reports and articles, the Petitioner emphasized the importance of marketing in 
businesses. We agree that the field of marketing is important, and that success in the field may lead 
to greater career opportunities and economic advantages. However, 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 specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
2 
In Dhanasar, we determined 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. Likewise, the 
Petitioner has not established how providing his service as a marketing manager in the health 
consultancy sector stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to impact the field more broadly at 
a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, we reviewed the Petitioner's professional plan and statement, which asserts that his 
proposed endeavor "will have a significant socioeconomic impact on a national and international 
scale" and therefore "will create jobs in the U.S." However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without sufficient information 
or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his 
future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting 
from the Petitioner's services as a marketing manager would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed 
work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we 
need not address his eligibility under the remaining prongs, and we hereby reserve them. 3 The burden 
of proof is on the Petitioner to establish that he meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. The Petitioner 
has not done so here and, therefore, we conclude that he has not established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 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 l&N Dec. 516. 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3