dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Operations Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25986093 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 21, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a general and operations manager, 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 the record did not establish 
the Petitioner's eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 
C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate el igibi I ity by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter a/Christa 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 tenn "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 discretion1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 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 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 Director determined the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional. The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established eligibility under the 
Dhanasar framework. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed 
and considered each one. The Petitioner proposes to continue working as a general and operations 
management professional, which involves "advis[ing] U.S. companies on how to properly plan, direct, 
and coordinate the operations of public or private sector organizations." He plans to work for any 
individual or company in need of his services. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues the Director did not properly consider the evidence and applied a 
heightened standard of proof in the adjudication of the petition. Specifically, the Petitioner states the 
Director did not give due consideration to his professional plan and statement; experience and 
professional qualifications; letters of recommendation; and industry reports and articles.2 
The Petitioner's professional plan and statement lists how his endeavor will potentially impact the 
United States; however, the items listed appear to be proposed job duties as a general and operations 
manager, rather than an explanation of the proposed endeavor's broader implications. Regarding 
economic benefits, the Director noted that the Petitioner had not offered sufficient evidence to support 
his assertions. We agree. For instance, the record does not evidence a sufficiently direct connection 
between the proposed endeavor activities and either job creation, tax revenue, or increased household 
spending. While any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact the economy, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity his proposed endeavor generates would 
rise to the level of affecting the U.S. economy. The Petitioner does not offer an evidentiary basis to 
conclude that the "ripple effects" of his proposed endeavor will, for instance, affect the U.S. gross 
domestic product or tax revenues, nor does he offer an estimate of how many and which jobs he will 
create. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or 
job creation 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 proposed endeavor would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. at 890. 
The Petitioner's recommendation letters do not support the Petitioner's eligibility under the first 
Dhanasar prong. The authors do not demonstrate knowledge of the proposed endeavor or explain 
how it has national importance. Although they discussed the results the Petitioner achieved for his 
employers and how the Petitioner performed well in various contract negotiations in the past, they did 
not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's performance or the results he achieved extended beyond 
his employer and the specific parties involved to impact the field more broadly. For instance, some 
2 When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required 
to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the 
Petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 
(1st Cir.1992); see also Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. U.S. INS, 984 
F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). 
2 
of the authors claim that the Petitioner negotiated an unprecedented discount for car rental companies 
and that this impacted the field and the Brazilian economy; however, the record does not contain 
sufficient details and objective evidence to corroborate such assertions. Generalized conclusory 
statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. 
v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C.1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). The submission of reference letters supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters so 
as to determine whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. Id. For these reasons, the letters are 
not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong.3 
The articles and reports address the industry as a whole, rather than the specific proposed endeavor. 
We agree that the operations management, business development, and automotive industries are 
important, as is addressing the shortage and demand of professionals in these fields. Nevertheless, 
this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. As the Director 
noted, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 
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 Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. As 
these materials do not analyze the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, it cannot be concluded that 
they support a finding that the endeavor has national importance. 
The evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the 
first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third 
prongs outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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). 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 The authors' praise of the Petitioner's personal and professional qualifications and his experience is a more relevant 
consideration in analyzing his eligibility under the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. The second prong "shifts 
the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether 
the specific endeavor has substantial merit and national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 
3