dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pet Apparel

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 9, 2024 In Re: 30231596 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a quality control analyst and entrepreneur in the field ofpet apparel, seeks employment­
based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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 the EB-2 visa classification or a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. 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 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
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 ofDhanasar, 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 
• 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 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director wrongfully stated that she does not qualify for the 
EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. However, as the record does not establish 
by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion, we will reserve the issue of the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification. 2 
B. National Interest Waiver 
1. Substantial Merit 
The first prong, 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. Dhanasar at 889. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to open and operate a quality control consulting company 
serving the pet apparel industry. The record includes information on the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor along with articles on the importance of entrepreneurship to a healthy economy, the role 
immigrants play in the industry, and their success in business ownership. We conclude that the 
proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
2. National Importance 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Id. The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director did not apply the proper 
standard of proof, instead imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applying the law. She asserts 
the Director did not give "due regard" to the evidence submitted, specifically: the resume outlining her 
experience; the business plan describing her professional credentials, expertise, and accomplishments; 
evidence of her work in the field; letters ofrecommendation; and industry reports and articles showing 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor and the shortage of professionals with her profile in 
the field. Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Director properly analyzed the evidence to 
evaluate the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of evidence and the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that her proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance element of Dhanasar's first 
prong, as discussed below. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
in nature). 
2 See INS v. Bagamashad. 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 alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2 
The Petitioner states that her proposed endeavor creates jobs, providing employment opportunities and 
stimulating economic growth. The business plan states that the Petitioner plans to create 11 jobs in 
the first year of operation and will increase to 34 direct jobs by the fifth year. In addition, she states 
that she will be creating 142 indirect jobs. These calculations were done using industry standards and 
the record does not show how her specific endeavor will create these jobs. Dhanasar states the 
proposed endeavor may show national importance by having a "significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers" or "other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area." Dhanasar 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The record does not show how these jobs will be created by the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor and the staffing levels themselves are not substantial enough to rise to 
the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts that her proposed endeavor will, "[i]mprove the United States' business sphere 
and further position the nation as a business hub within the global economy." However, the Petitioner 
has not provided corroborating evidence to support these claims of her business' substantial economic 
benefits to the United States. The Petitioner's claims of her proposed endeavor's economic impact 
have not been established through independent and objective evidence. The Petitioner's statements 
are not sufficient to demonstrate her endeavor has the potential to provide these benefits to the United 
States. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Additionally, the business plan shows the Petitioner intends to expand her business to multiple 
locations, serve multiple companies, and offer skills training sessions. 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. Dhanasar 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Although the record 
shows the Petitioner plans to expand her business in various ways, the record does not establish the 
proposed endeavor will benefit more than the direct clients it will serve or that the Petitioner's business 
would impact the quality control industry more broadly. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends her extensive experience in the business sector and the industry 
reports and articles in the record show her endeavor's national importance. However, past experience 
is applicable to prong two analysis, on whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the 
endeavor but is not proof of national importance. In addition, the industry reports and articles on the 
importance of entrepreneurship to a healthy economy along with the role immigrants play in the 
industry and their success in owning businesses are helpful for background information and in a 
substantial merit claim as discussed above, however, they also do not show national importance. It is 
the importance of the specific endeavor we must analyze and not the industry itself. 
Finally, the record contains an expert opinion letter that reiterates many of the same arguments the 
Petitioner makes that have been addressed above regarding the proposed endeavor, the economic 
possibilities, and her past experience in the field. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence 
individually, we have reviewed and considered the record in its entirety. As the Petitioner's proposed 
work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. 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 Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A­
C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
therefore conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner has not established that she 
is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4