dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Quality Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 17, 2023 In Re: 28536818 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chief executive officer of an entity in the field of quality management, 1 seeks 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or of exceptional ability, 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner 
also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this employment 
based second preference (EB-2) classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § 
1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. See Paursina 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that a waiver of the required job offer and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. 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 afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa'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 
1 On appeal, the Petitioner alleges error by the Director in their characterizing of the Petitioner 's role as 
"CEO/Entrepreneur." But they express their endeavor on appeal as a desire to "have [their] own company" to provide the 
services they offer. Entrepreneur is defined as "one who organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or 
enterprise." See the definition of entrepreneur from Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www.merriam­
webster.com/dictionary/entrepreneur. So it appears the Petitioner is an entrepreneur as they will provide their services by 
and through the auspices of their "own company." 
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. 
Whilst neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that users may as a matter of discretion 
grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the labor certification, to a petitioner 
classified in the EB-2 category if they demonstrate that (1) the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance, (2) the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor, and (3) that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the 
requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. users may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, indicate 
that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and 
thus of a labor certification. 
II. 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 of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that whilst the Petitioner was well positioned to advance 
their proposed endeavor, the proposed endeavor was not of national importance such that on balance 
a waiver of the requirement of a job offer and labor certification would be beneficial to the United 
States. We agree with the Director's overall decision that the Petitioner does not qualify for a national 
2 
interest waiver, but we do not agree with and will withdraw the Director's specific finding that the 
Petitioner was well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The 
Petitioner initially described their endeavor as a venture named '._____________ _, 
providing "quality manufacturing services (QMS) and consulting services to manufacturing 
companies throughout the United States." Specifically, as described in their initial business plan, the 
endeavor's services would "address quality control, efficiency, health and safety management, and 
environmental regulation, as well as maintenance services for various management systems, internal 
auditing, quality systems development and implementation, and regulatory affairs support." The 
initial business plan expressed the endeavor would "positively impact the national interest of the 
country" by contributing to manufacturing quality and efficiency, supporting safe and improved 
workplace environments, supporting pandemic-related safety and operational adjustment for 
businesses, and promoting job creation. The Petitioner asserted in their personal statement that their 
endeavor would "serve as a bridge between Small and Medium Businesses and quality management 
systems methodologies." 
An update to the Petitioner's initial business plan submitted in response to the Director's request for 
evidence narrowed the venue of the proposed endeavor from any "majol metropllitan city in Florida" 
to Small Business Administration (SBA) designated "HUBZones" in Florida, serving the 
Central Florida community with state and national expansion aspirations. The updated business plan 
also listed examples of the quality management systems the endeavor would design and implement 
for their customers such as ISO 9001, good manufacturing practices (GMP), ISO 4001, ISO 45001, 
and integrated management systems based on a combination of the listed and other systems. The 
update also included a discussion on support for quality management services in the aerospace 
industry, ostensibly because the Petitioner had procured employment with a tool and die company 
which stamped and shipped precision parts for the aerospace industry amongst others. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
Whilst the Director found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit, they also 
concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that their proposed endeavor was of national 
importance because the Petitioner did not demonstrate the broader implications of the proposed 
endeavor or its potential positive economic effects. For the below reasons, we agree. 
The Petitioner mischaracterizes the standard of proof when they assert on appeal "that there can be a 
real substantial doubt, and yet still, the petition should be approved." 2 In Chawathe we concluded that 
only "some doubt," not "substantial doubt," as to the truth of a given assertion or contention could be 
resolved by relevant, probative, and credible evidence that rendered the assertion "more likely than 
not" or "probably" true. Chawathe at 376. And although the evidentiary standard in immigration 
proceedings is the lowest preponderance of the evidence standard, the burden is on the Petitioner alone 
2 The Petitioner also references the receipt number for an approved immigrant petition in favor of an unknown petitioner 
with a purpo11edly similar proposed endeavor to suppmt its contention that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national 
impo11ance. Individual approved immigrant petitions, like our non-precedent decisions, only apply to the parties in a 
specific case and do not establish any binding policy, rules, or precedent for other matters. 
3 
to provide material, relevant, and probative evidence to meet that standard. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. A petitioner's burden of proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as 
well as the ultimate burden of persuasion. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998); 
also see the definition of burden of proof from Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (reflecting the 
burden of proof includes both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion). First, a 
petitioner must satisfy the burden of production. As the term suggests, this burden requires a filing 
party to produce evidence in the form of documents, testimony, etc. that adheres to the governing 
statutory, regulatory, and policy provisions sufficient to have the issue decided on the merits. 
The Petitioner initially submitted an expert opinion letter, educational documentation, industry 
certification, experience letters from prior employers, personal statement, business plan and 
registration documentation, documentation regarding the national importance of product safety and 
vehicle safety, articles relating to employee fitness, engagement, and economic impact of the COVID-
19 pandemic and employee turnover, U.S. governmental studies related to workplace well-being and 
personal fitness, and articles evaluating the impact of immigrants in business communities. In 
response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted an updated business plan and personal 
statement, articles and reports relating to quality management systems, and new letters of current and 
previous employment. 3 
The Petitioner's evidence and argument does not help them carry their burden of production and 
persuasion because it is not persuasive relevant, material, or probative evidence relating to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner states they applied as a "distinguished, quality control, industrial safety, occupational 
health and environmental systems engineer" and their "endeavor is to have [their] own 
company ... where [they] will provide" the services they intend to perform.4 Essentially the Petitioner 
contends that their endeavor is to perform their services for small and medium businesses and 
manufacturing companies in the United States under the auspices of their own company or corporate 
entity. They ground the value of their proposed endeavor in their long career in the proposed 
endeavor's field and success in performing related job duties. But the Petitioner's assertion spotlights 
a fundamental misunderstanding of the Dhanasar framework's first prong. The first prong focuses on 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake" and its potential prospective 
impact. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. So what is critical in determining the national importance 
under Dhanasar is whether the proposed endeavor has a potential prospective impact with broader 
implications which rise to the level of national importance. It is not what duties or what occupation 
the noncitizen will fill or perform but their actual plan with their occupation and duties that is 
examined. The first prong of the Dhanasar framework is consequently unconcerned with the 
likelihood of success of the proposed endeavor or the Petitioner's longevity of experience in their field 
of endeavor previously. 
And even if we were to set the nature of the Petitioner's endeavor to the side, we would still conclude 
that it did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework to demonstrate its national importance 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 Much of the documentation the Petitioner has submitted focuses on their individual accomplishments and expe1iise when 
attesting to the national importance and substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. It is important to note that the 
Petitioner's accomplishments and expertise are more relevant to the second prong of Dhanasar, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Dhanasar at 889. 
4 
because the proposed endeavor's benefits do not broadly implicate matters of national importance. In 
Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n 
undertaking may have a national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." Id. The broader implications of the proposed endeavor, 
national and/or international, can inform us of the proposed endeavor's national importance. That is 
not to say that the implications are viewed solely through a geographical lens. Broader implications 
can reach beyond a particular proposed endeavor's geographical locus and focus. The relevant inquiry 
is whether the broader implications apply beyond just narrowly conferring the proposed endeavor's 
benefit. The Petitioner's initial and updated business plan identified the "national impact" of the 
proposed endeavor in contributions to manufacturing quality and efficiency, support of safe workplace 
environments, support of pandemic-related safety and operational adjustments for businesses, and 
promotion ofjob creation to increase competitiveness and improve individual performance and health 
in the workplace. The Director considered these potential benefits when they determined the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor was of substantial merit. However, there is insufficient evidence in 
the record to support the impact of the Petitioner's endeavor would permeate beyond the immediate 
sphere of those small and medium size businesses and manufacturing companies engaging the 
Petitioner for their services. In other words, the record does not adequately establish the broader 
implications of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rising to a level of national importance. For 
example, studies cited by the Petitioner summarized the economic benefits (such as increased revenues 
and reduced costs) of implementing quality management programs at companies. But it is not clear 
from the record how increased revenues and reduced costs at individual companies would implicate 
matters at a level of national importance. And to the extent that the Petitioner asserts that the national 
importance of their proposed endeavor is apparent upon aggregation of the benefits realized by their 
clients engaging their services, the record as it is presently composed does not convincingly reflect the 
level at which this aggregation would implicate an issue rising to a level of national importance. The 
same applies to the Petitioner's contention that quality management principles support safe workplace 
environments which improve individual performance and health in the workplace and reduce personal 
injury lawsuits and compensation claims. The record does not persuasively demonstrate how the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor would support safe workplace environments anywhere beyond the 
immediate cadre of entities seeking out the Petitioner's specific quality management for workplace 
health and safety services and how that service would rise to a level of national importance. 
Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, the Director did not disregard and in fact considered the science, 
technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) aspects of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to 
evaluate its national importance. We agree with the Director that the STEM aspects of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor do not rise to a level of national importance. The Petitioner's sole claim to prompt 
examination of the STEM credentials of their proposed endeavor is sourced in assertions of the 
importance of attracting STEM professionals to the United States to advance U.S. global 
competitiveness. However, the Petitioner's endeavor is not connected with the recruiting or attraction 
of STEM professionals to the United States. And the Petitioner's possession of a degree in a STEM 
field does not automatically render their proposed endeavor substantially meritorious, nationally 
important, or substantially meritorious and nationally important. The record does not contain 
persuasive relevant, material, or probative evidence demonstrating how the STEM aspects of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor implicate topics rising to a level of national importance. For example, 
it is not clear in the record how the Petitioner's possession of a degree in a STEM field broadly 
implicated matters of national importance in the field of quality management. Moreover, the record 
5 
does not sufficiently describe how the Petitioner's ISO certifications and efforts to proliferate ISO 
certifications benefitting the specific small and medium sized business and manufacturing companies 
they aspire to provide their services to implicates matters of national importance. 
We also stated in Dhanasar 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. The Petitioner roots the 
potential positive effects of their unrealized quality management firm in their potential for job creation 
in areas experiencing high unemployment and revenue generation. The Petitioner optimistically 
expects that the endeavor would realize total revenue of $1,193,066 and an employee census of nine 
people within five years of establishment. But the record contains insufficient documentation to 
support the Petitioner's projections. For example, the record does not support how the services the 
Petitioner provided would generate the income or what steps could be taken to entice employment in 
the particular area. The Petitioner, in response to the Director's RFE, narrowed down the locus of 
their proposed endeavor to thel IFlorida area and contend that they intended to employ their 
employees in "HUBZones." At appeal, the Petitioner farther explicated that the job creation would 
come not from their "business perse but primarily from the businesses [they] will assist with [their] 
services." The record contains insufficient evidence to support how their proposed endeavor's job 
creation prospects, directly or indirectly, would be of sufficient significance that it could implicate 
matters of national importance. And the fact the employment the Petitioner intends to directly create 
would be placed in a HUBZone is unpersuasive. The HUBZone program's goal is to promote business 
growth in underutilized business zones with the goal of awarding three percent of federal contract 
dollars to companies that are HUBZone certified. Joining the HUBZone program makes a business 
eligible to compete for certain federal contracts in the "set-aside" category. There are several required 
qualifications to participate in the program, but the most dispositive requirement for purposes of our 
analysis is that the business seeking to participate in the HUBZone program must be at least 51 % 
owned by U.S. citizens, a community development corporation, an agricultural cooperative, an Alaska 
Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. Whilst it is unknown and the 
record is silent about what if any federal programs exist in the "set-aside" category for the Petitioner's 
proposed quality management endeavor, the record is crystal clear that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor would be wholly owned and controlled by the Petitioner and that the Petitioner is not a U.S. 
citizen, a community development corporation, an agricultural cooperative, an Alaska Native 
corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. So the fact that the Petitioner intended 
to employ the future employees of its proposed endeavor in a HUB Zone is wholly irrelevant to whether 
the Petitioner's endeavor rose to a level of national importance. The record does not adequately reflect 
that creating employment in a HUBZone implicates matters rising to a level of national importance. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. See Matter ofCaron Int 'I, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, the submission ofletters from experts supporting 
the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. The advisory opinion submitted by the 
Petitioner does not illustrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to national importance 
either. Firstly, the writer is an associate professor of marketing at I IUniversity. It is 
unclear in the record how the writer's expertise in marketing renders them qualified to provide an 
opinion on the national importance of a proposed endeavor in the field of quality management, which 
the Petitioner categorized in the STEM field of engineering. This is farther problematic because the 
6 
writer states their background relates to the "field of Business Management to which [ the Petitioner] 
belongs." But the Petitioner identified themselves as an engineer in quality management, not business 
management. Even when the writer evaluated the potential national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor, they mainly focused their analysis on the Petitioner's past performance of quality 
management duties with their previous employers. And when the advisory opinion does evaluate the 
endeavor's national interest, it speaks of it in vague or generalized conclusions. For example, the 
writer states that "[g]rowth supported by small and medium-sized enterprises pays dividends for all 
U.S. citizens by increasing tax revenues to the federal and state governments and increasing the funds 
available to spend on hospitals, schools, roads, and other essential services." But the writer does not 
reference or cite to any evidence or documentation in the record that we could evaluate in order to 
examine the magnitude of growth the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would spur and how it 
implicates matters such as increased tax revenue or better infrastructure rising to a level of national 
importance. And whilst the writer obliquely mentions the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's potential 
for job growth, they do not explain or quantify the amount of job creation, how it is significant, or 
even what location the job creation would benefit. The writer vaguely invokes a potential for the 
endeavor to broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural enrichment by "increasing business and 
commercial opportunities for U.S. companies." The writer specifically mentions the magnitude of the 
automotive and pharmaceutical industries to support their assertion. However, it is not evident from 
the record how "increasing business and commercial opportunities for U.S. companies" and 
specifically pharmaceutical and automotive companies would be accomplished by the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. Moreover, it is not evident in the record how societal welfare or cultural 
enrichment is impacted by the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, even if it made a point of working with 
pharmaceutical and automotive companies to "alleviate any commercial or marketing challenges." 
The Petitioner identified the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, the National Institute of Health, and the United States Office of Personnel Management as 
government entities with initiatives operating at the intersection between work, health, and wellness. 
Whilst health and safety management utilizing quality management techniques is a service the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor seeks to provide, it is not clear in the record how the Petitioner's 
contemplated service relates to the studies the Petitioner cited as government initiatives supporting 
their work. And, even if they did relate, we would still conclude they did not implicate matters rising 
to a level of national importance because any benefit or influence, such that it is, would apply mainly 
only to those companies that work directly with the Petitioner. This is akin to how the benefit of 
someone's teaching is generally only directly beneficial to the students being taught and not wider 
population. In Dhanasar we discussed how teaching would not impact the field of education broadly 
in a manner which rises to national importance. Dhanasar at 893. By extension activities which only 
benefit a small subset of individuals and companies, like the Petitioner's proposed quality management 
endeavor, would not rise to a level of national importance. The record does not contain any meaningful 
analysis of the Petitioner's proposed services' broader implications or potential prospective economic 
impact rising to the level of national importance. And the letters of recommendation containing 
testimonials of the services the Petitioner performed do not describe how the benefits they have 
received connect to broader implications rising to national importance or any nationally important 
economic impact. In sum the record supports the conclusion that the potential impact of the endeavor 
of providing quality management to small and medium sized businesses and manufacturing companies 
would benefit only the individuals and entities engaging the service. 
7 
So we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that their proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. 
C. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
We disagree with the Director and hereby withdraw the Director's conclusion that the record 
established the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. In evaluating whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance 
their proposed endeavor, we review the following and any other relevant factors: 
• A petitioner's education, skill, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar efforts; 
• A petitioner's model or plan for future activities related to the proposed endeavor that the 
individual developed, or played a significant role in developing; 
• Any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and 
• The interest or support garnered by the individual from potential customers, users, investor, or 
other relevant entities or persons. 
It is not clear how an individualized consideration of the multifactorial analysis under Dhanasar 's 
second prong would demonstrate how well positioned the Petitioner is to advance their proposed 
endeavor. The record as currently constituted would still not reflect how the Petitioner's prior 
performance of the duties described in the experience letters is either a similar effort as that of their 
proposed endeavor or how it constitutes a record of success. Whilst the Petitioner submitted a business 
plan and an updated business plan describing a plan or model for future activities, the record does not 
reflect any progress to achieving the proposed endeavor other than registering their company. The 
establishment of their company alone is not strong evidence of progress. Finally, the recommendation 
letters the Petitioner submitted are not material, relevant, or probative evidence in the record of interest 
or support in the endeavor the Petitioner proposed in their petition. As stated above, a petitioner's 
burden of proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well as the ultimate burden of 
persuasion. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998); also see the definition of burden of 
proof from Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (reflecting the burden of proof includes both 
the burden of production and the burden of persuasion). So the evidence in the record does not 
sufficiently describe how well situated the Petitioner would be to advance their petition's proposed 
endeavor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established that they meet the first or second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, they have not shown that they are eligible for and otherwise merit a national interest 
waiver, and we reserve this issue. 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 I&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 requirements of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that they have not established that 
they are eligible for or otherwise merit a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8