dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Recruitment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 13, 2024 In Re: 34855571 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a headhunter in the field of financial analysis, 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 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 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. 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: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated his eligibility for EB-2 
classification. 2 The Director further concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The matter 
before us on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established the substantial merit and national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. We determine, upon de novo review, that the Petitioner has 
not. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as described in the business plan submitted with his petition, is to 
openl I, a business through which he apply his expertise as 
a headhunter for the Brazilian insurance sector to serve as a headhunter for companies in the United States 
insurance and financial sectors. A second business plan provided with the Petitioner's RFE response 
clarifies that I I will focus on companies in the finance and insurance industries in Florida and New 
York, acting "as a provider of high-level, customized recruitment consulting services for companies." 
The business plan indicates that this proposed endeavor will be "responsible for designing and 
implementing the overall recruiting strategy, sourcing and attracting candidates, conducting interviews, 
and filtering candidates for job vacancies" and will "focus on sourcing candidates for technical roles, such 
as actuaries, leveraging [the Petitioner]'s extensive knowledge and experience in the field of finance." 
The plan states that I I will also offer a unique "professional monitoring" tool "encompass[ing] the 
entire process of integrating newly hired employees into their respective organizations." 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated his eligibility 
for EB-2 classification. On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's finding that he has not 
established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification. Accordingly, we deem it waived. See, e.g., 
Matter ofM-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2; see also Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 
678 (11th Cir. 2014) ( finding that when the appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal one ground on 
which the district court based its judgment, he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge ofthat ground.) 
The Director further determined that the Petitioner had not established the substantial merit and the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 3 Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. On appeal, the Petitioner contests this 
conclusion and asserts that, had the Director considered the updated! Ibusiness plan submitted with 
his RFE response, they would have reached a different conclusion. 
2 We note that the Director's decision does not specify whether this determination was made based upon eligibility as a 
member of the professions with an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. We additionally note that 
the Petitioner indicated that he sought classification only as an individual of exceptional ability and the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE) advised the Petitioner that he had not provided required evidence needed to establish his eligibility as 
such an individual. 
3 The Director also concluded that he was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and that on balance, waiving 
the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. The Director therefore determined that the Petitioner had not 
shown his eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
2 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 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. Matter ofDhanasar , 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 
Regarding the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner argues that this is shown through 
the development and opening of1 in the United States. An endeavor's merit may be demonstrated 
in a range of areas such as business , entrepreneurialism , science, technology , culture, health, or 
education. Id. The business plan presented with the Petitioner's RFE response, and resubmitted on 
appeal, references articles from Forbes Magazine and CNBC discussing challenges small businesses face 
in hiring workers. It further discusses the positive impact that successful recruitiment has on increasing 
labor productivity and therefore the U.S. economy. The record is therefore sufficient to show, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor , as outlined in his business 
plan, has substantial merit. We will withdraw the Director 's determination to the contrary. 
The Petitioner also contends on appeal that the national importance of the proposed endeavor is 
demonstrated through the nationwide impact of the development of his business. In determining whether 
the proposed endeavor has national importance , we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. In 
Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications " of the proposed endeavor and that 
"[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated 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. 
According to thel Ibusiness plan, the proposed endeavor will focus on businesses located in Florida 
and in New York, and will employ four personnel in the first year of operation, five in the second year of 
operation, and six employees in the third, fourth, and fifth years of operation. The sales forecast for the 
proposed endeavor, as presented in the business plan, anticipates $432,000 in total sales in year one, 
$514,080 in year two, $622,037 in year three, $659,359 in year four, and $698, 921 in year five. The 
business plan anticipates that the proposed endeavor will generate a total of 13 direct and indirect jobs in 
Florida by its fifth year in operation. However, the record lacks sufficient evidence to support these 
projections. Even had the Petitioner provided such evidence, the record does not demonstrate that these 
benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. Further, in Dhanasar we stated 
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. However, the Petitioner does not offer evidence to 
demonstrate that the areas of Florida in which the proposed endeavor intends to operate are 
economically disadvantaged areas. Further, he has not provided evidence demonstrating that his 
proposed business activities 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. While any basic economic activity has the potential 
to positively affect the economy to some degree, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the potential 
3 
prospective impact of his proposed endeavor stands to offer broader implications in his industry or to 
generate substantial positive economic effects in the United States as a whole. 
Per I I business plan, the national importance of the proposed endeavor is also demonstrated by its 
alignment with the White House National Security Strategy, as it expands "America's economic 
prosperity and opportunity." While the National Security Strategy indicates the important role that the 
U.S. economy plays in national security, it focuses on actions taken at the Federal level to invest in various 
sectors such as infrastructure, the development of new technologies, and the U.S. military. This National 
Security Strategy does not specifically show the government's interest in the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor or similar endeavors. In evaluating national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, we will consider evidence demonstrating how a specific proposed endeavor impacts a 
matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or a matter that is the 
subject of national initiatives. However, the creation of a proposed endeavor in an area that is adjacent 
to the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient , in and of itself, to establish the national 
importance of that endeavor. The Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential prospective impact 
of his specific proposed endeavor in that area. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified reasons for dismissal are 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments 
concerning his eligibility under the second and third prongs of 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible) . 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established his eligibility for the EB-2 classification. Further, the documentation 
in the record does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 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 as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed 
for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the 
decision . 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4