dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 9, 2024 In Re: 31569870 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in marketing consulting, 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 is eligible for a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. 
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. 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: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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 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. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The 
first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework requires the Petitioner to establish the proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. We agree with the Director that the 
submitted documentation establishes the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner stated in her definitive statement that she intends to 
"serve as a Marketing Manager/Entrepreneur by managing and operating my U.S. based company 
_____ The company will provide consulting in business intelligence and digital marketing 
strategy services focusing on small and mid-sized businesses in the U.S." In response to a request for 
evidence, she provided she "will utilize her marketing skills to promote products and advertise services 
of companies that will achieve significant cross-border sales for U.S. companies looking to grow abroad, 
as well as foreign companies looking to move and grow in the U.S." Additionally, she provided in her 
business plan that the company "will provide consulting in marketing management, business intelligence 
and digital marketing strategy services focusing on small and mid-sized businesses in the USA." 
In addition to the above documents, the record includes, but is not limited to, articles and industry 
reports about marketing jobs and the role of immigrants in the workforce, and information from 
O*NET OnLine and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage 
Statistics related to marketing managers. Lastly, the record includes company records forl I 
__________ company portfolio samples, letters of intent from potential clients, 
letters of recommendation, education records, a resume, and immigration records. 
The Director listed evidence submitted by the Petitioner and discussed details from her business plan. 
The Director noted that the company would be inl IFL, which has a population of over 430,000. 
The Director further mentioned that the business plan references a projected number of 80 employees 
and a projected net income of $692,583 by year five, and it provides how the company would enhance 
other small to mid-sized companies through various means. However, the Director found that the 
Petitioner did not establish the potential to hire a significant number of employees, substantial positive 
economic effects, or that the benefits would extend beyond the company and its potential clients. The 
Director reviewed letters from companies intending to work with the Petitioner, but noted the benefits 
were to the companies rather than resulting in broad implications in the industry. The Director next 
discussed the letters of recommendation and also determined that they did not provide evidence that 
the proposed endeavor would have national importance. Finally, the Director noted the Petitioner did 
not provide sufficient evidence of the prospective endeavor's potential prospective impact, including 
2 
broader implications, or national or global implications within the field; significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers; substantial economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed field; broad 
enhancement of societal welfare; or broad enhancement of cultural or artistic enrichment. Therefore, 
the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erroneously imposed a stricter standard of proof With 
respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that they meet each eligibility 
requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what they claim is "more likely than 
not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the 
preponderance standard, USCIS considers not only the quantity, but also the quality (including 
relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 
77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, the Petitioner does not specifically identify statements in the 
Director's decision applying a higher standard of proof or imposing novel substantive and evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the Dhanasar framework. 
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. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide marketing consulting services to her company's 
future clients, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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. Id. at 893. Here, we conclude the 
Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company 
and its clientele to impact her field, the marketing consulting industry, or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director did not provide a detailed analysis of the evidence she claims is 
related to national importance, including her business plan, resume, evidence of her work in the field, 
letters of recommendation, and industry reports and articles. We will address the previously submitted 
evidence in relation to the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's business plan 
includes industry and market analyses, information about the company and its services, financial 
forecasts and projections, marketing strategies, a discussion of the Petitioner's education and work 
experience, and a description of company personnel. Regarding future staffing, the Petitioner's 
business plan anticipates that her company will employ 19 personnel in year one, 33 in year two, 49 in 
year three, 64 in in year four, and 80 in year five, but she did not elaborate on these projections or 
provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees. Furthermore, while her plan 
offers revenue projections of$1,083,613 in year one, $1,882,065 in year two, $2,794,582 in year three, 
$3,650,066 in year four, and $4,562,582 in year five, these projections are not supported by details 
showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved. 
The Petitioner's resume and supporting documents reflect that she has been working since 1999 in 
numerous positions such as branch manager, marketing manager, marketing head, insurance commercial 
manager, marketing intern, and marketing director. The record also includes evidence of her educational 
degrees, certificates, additional courses, and letters from prior employers. The Petitioner's skills, 
3 
knowledge, and prior work in her field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, however, focuses on the proposed endeavor and not on 
the Petitioner's education and prior work in the field. The national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor stands separate and apart from her education, skills, and job experience. 2 
The Petitioner previously submitted articles and industry reports about marketing jobs and the role of 
immigrants in the workforce, and information from O*NET OnLine and the U.S. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics related to marketing managers. She asserts 
that the articles demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The issue here is not 
the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; rather 
we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 
26 T&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner also contends that there is an impending shortage of marketing professionals in the 
United States, and she would be able to immediately contribute to the United States with her extensive 
experience. However, the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render her 
proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of 
qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor 
certification process. 
The Petitioner claims that there are broader implications from the proposed endeavor, as the services 
offered have the potential to transform digital marketing strategies for U.S. companies at a national level. 
The Petitioner, however, has not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that her marketing 
consulting business would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance. It is 
insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without 
providing evidence to substantiate such claims. Furthermore, while any basic economic activity has 
the potential to positively affect the economy to some degree, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how 
the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor stands to offer broader implications in her 
field or to generate substantial positive economic effects in the region where her company will operate 
or in other parts of the United States. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. Specifically, she has not demonstrated that her company's future staffing levels and 
business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States. She 
has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from 
her undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner has not established that she meets the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. Therefore, she has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this 
issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate 
2 See Dhanasar at 890. 
4 
arguments regarding her eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar. 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 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 The Director determined that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, which is the second 
prong outlined in Dhanasar. We will not address whether we agree with this finding as the dete1mination that the proposed 
endeavor lacks national importance is dispositive of the appeal. 
5