dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Product Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25611867 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 09, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a product 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 that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner was eligible for or merited a national interest waiver. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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). 
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 discretion 1, 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 
In order to be eligible for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first establish eligibility under 
the EB-2 immigrant classification. The Director's decision did not address this initial requirement. 
The record includes copies of two diplomas earned by the Petitioner, master of science degrees in 
international business and international marketing, received froml !Business School 
in 2018 and 2019, respectively. This evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner is a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree, and therefore qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification. 
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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner initially stated that his proposed endeavor was to continue to work as a product manager 
for his employer at the time, but did not provide any specifics regarding this endeavor. In response to 
the Director's request for evidence (RFE), he submitted a statement indicating that he proposed to 
work as a product manager for a different company that employed him at the time of the RFE, and 
listing his duties in this position. 
In his appeal briet: the Petitioner initially points out three errors in the Director's analysis of this prong: 
referring to the Petitioner twice by the incorrect gender, discussing the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor in terms of his "patients," and an inconsistent concluding statement when 
analyzing under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Although these errors are regrettable and 
reflect a lack of care in the drafting of the decision, after review it does not appear that they were 
material to the Director's ultimate conclusion regarding the Petitioner's eligibility. The Director stated 
three times that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had not been shown to be of national importance 
before erroneously stating that the first prong was met, and he acknowledged the proposed endeavor's 
title of "product manager" and field as marketing. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Director disregarded evidence in the record concerning the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor, including his statement, letters from his former and current 
employers, documentation concerning the marketing profession and small businesses in the United 
States, and three expert opinion letters. We will focus on this evidence below. 
In addition to describing his duties in his current position, the Petitioner notes in his statement that his 
employer "is focused on helping small companies succeed, by offering easy to understand [insurance] 
policies at an affordable price." He also describes a project he is working on for his employer that he 
asserts has generated revenue for the company and necessitated the hiring of two additional employees, 
and has the potential for creating the need for three more hires. 
2 
The two letters from the Petitioner's current employer also discuss the economic impact of his work 
as a product manager "on the company, the insurance industry, and small business owners across the 
country." Turning first to the assertions about the impact on small businesses and the insurance 
industry, the Petitioner conflates his proposed endeavor with his current employment. As mentioned 
above, the analysis in the first prong under the Dhanasar framework is prospective, focusing on the 
merits of the proposed endeavor, and is not defined by a petitioner's occupation at the time of filing. 
There is nothing inherent to the proposed endeavor of employment as a product manager that would 
have substantial positive economic effects on a particular industry or small businesses in the United 
States. Notably, the Petitioner did not make these claims about his employment as a product manager 
with a cosmetics company in his initial filing. 
In addition, while the Petitioner asserts that the economic effects of his proposed endeavor will reach 
beyond his employer to impact the American workforce and national economy, the record does not 
support this assertion. One of the letters from his current employer states that one of the projects led 
by the Petitioner is expected to add nearly $2 million in revenue for the company, and concludes that 
he is extremely valuable to the company. But it does not indicate that this would have any broader 
implications for the national economy, and neither letter supports the Petitioner's claims of potential 
job creation. See Dhanasar at 889-890. The Petitioner also submitted letters from his previous 
employers, but they describe his position and contributions to those companies and are therefore not 
relevant to the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner additionally refers to articles, submitted in response to the Director's RFE, which 
broadly discuss the importance of marketing in general to economic activity. Another article reports 
that companies' expenditures on marketing grew during the COVID-19 pandemic. While these 
materials help to show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is in an area of substantial merit, 
business, they do not demonstrate that the potential prospective impact of his work as a product 
manager within the broader field of marketing would have substantial positive economic effects. Id. 
As the focus of the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework is on the specific endeavor that 
a petitioner proposes to undertake, broad statements about the national importance of a particular field 
are insufficient to demonstrate that a petitioner's specific proposed endeavor meets the first prong. 
Further, the Petitioner argues that the Director did not sufficiently consider three expert opinion letters 
which were submitted with his RFE response. On review, these letters do not establish the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor for the same reasons previously discussed. For example, 
Associate Professor !University bases his opinion of the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor on his current employer's position as an insurance 
company, the importance of small businesses and the effects of the COVTD-19 pandemic, and a 
projection that he "will be invited to speak at conferences, seminars, symposiums, and other 
professional events." But the Petitioner has not indicated that his proposed endeavor includes speaking 
at professional events. 
Similarly, Adjunct Associate Professor ___________ _.University makes the same 
unsubstantiated projection of the Petitioner's activity as a speaker, and focuses on the broader impact 
of the marketing profession rather than the Petitioner's specific endeavor. 
3 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. See 
MatterofCaron/nternational, 19I&NDec. 791,795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCISisultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Id. We note that all three letter writers provide opinions regarding the Petitioner's eligibility for an 
immigration benefit, yet none claim expertise in immigration law and policy. 
For all of the reasons stated above, we conclude that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of 
substantial merit, but that he has not established its national importance, and has therefore not met the 
first prong in the Dhanasar analytical framework. As a petitioner must meet all three prongs of the 
framework to be eligible for a national interest waiver, we reserve our evaluation of whether the 
Petitioner is well positioned to advance his endeavor and whether, on balance, it would be in the 
national interest to waive the EB-2 classification's job offer requirement. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding it unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when another 
independent issue is dispositive of the appeal); see also Matter of D-L-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 568, 576-77 
n.10 (BIA 2022) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise 
ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established his eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. However, he has not established that he is eligible for, and otherwise 
merits, a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification. The petition will remain 
denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4