dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Refrigeration Equipment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 23, 2024 In Re: 31108897 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or 
business. See 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 
EB-2 immigrant 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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner does not 
qualify for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. The Director also concluded that the 
Petitioner does not qualify, in the alternative, as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The Director further concluded that the Petitioner had not established 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of 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 a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree 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. 
While 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, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance; (2) that 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. 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 in nature). 
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. 
See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director concluded that the Petitioner does not qualify for classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability. More specifically, although the Director found that the record 
satisfies at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), the Director concluded that the record 
does not establish the Petitioner is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Because we nevertheless find that the record does not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a 
job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest, we reserve our opinion 
regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies second-preference eligibility criteria. See section 203(b )(2) 
of the Act; see also 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"); 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). 
The Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan to operate a company that sells, installs, and maintains 
refrigeration equipment, "specialized in the food industry." The Petitioner submitted a business plan, 
which indicates that the company would be based in I I South Dakota. The business plan 
asserts, "The South Dakota area has very few establishments operating in the transportation 
refrigeration sector." However, we note that neither the business plan nor the remainder of the record 
elaborates-with objective information-on what relationship there may be between "very few 
establishments" and whatever demand for relevant products and services there may be in "the South 
Dakota area." The business plan indicates that the Petitioner would work as the company's chief 
executive officer with seven additional employees for a total of eight workers in the first year of 
operation, increasing to a total of 18 workers within the first five years of operation. The business 
plan describes workers in the following job categories: secretary; administrative assistant; advertising 
manager; sales representative; technician; and cleaner. The Petitioner also submitted copies of 
publications that provide generalized information regarding business, refrigeration equipment, 
refrigeration equipment technicians, and similar topics. 
The Director acknowledged information in the record and concluded that "the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit," as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
2 
889-90. However, the Director noted that "the [P]etitioner has not provided specific information or 
data relevant to economic effects potentially resulting from this general entrepreneurship." The 
Director also observed, "The [P]etitioner has not established that his proposed work has implications 
beyond the current company or any prospective businesses [sic] partners, alliances, and/or unidentified 
clients at a level sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of the endeavor," referencing the 
first Dhanasar prong. The Director also acknowledged the business plan's indication that the 
company would employ 18 workers within the first five years of operations; however, the Director 
noted that the record does not establish how that employment "would have substantial positive effects 
in the South Dakota community," again referencing the first Dhanasar prong. Ultimately, the Director 
concluded that the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. The Director further concluded that the record does 
not satisfy the third Dhanasar prong, without addressing whether the record satisfies the second 
Dhanasar prong. See id. at 888-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional copies of publications that provide generalized 
information regarding business, refrigeration equipment, refrigeration equipment technicians, and 
similar topics, which, in relevant part, the Petitioner asserts establish the proposed endeavor has 
national importance. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on 
"the speci fie endeavor that the [ non citizen] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential 
prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." See id. at 889. Dhanasar provided examples 
of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first prong, having "national or 
even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances" or those with "significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area." Id. at 889-90. 
We first note that the Petitioner's references to publications in the record that provide generalized 
information regarding business, refrigeration equipment, refrigeration equipment technicians, and 
similar topics, are immaterial to whether the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor the 
Petitioner proposes to undertake may have the type of broader implications indicative of national 
importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. The publications, including those 
referenced on appeal, that provide generalized information do not address the Petitioner, the specific 
endeavor he proposes to undertake, and how the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor 
he proposes to undertake may have the type of"national or even global implications within a particular 
field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or 
those with "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. Because the publications that provide 
generalized information do not inform how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake 
may have national importance, they do not establish eligibility and we need not address them further. 
The record indicates that the proposed endeavor may benefit the Petitioner's company's potential 
customers or clients; however, the record does not establish how the potential prospective impact of 
the proposed endeavor may have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance, 
3 
as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. For example, although the record establishes that the 
Petitioner's company will sell, install, and maintain refrigeration equipment, "specialized in the food 
industry," it does not establish how the Petitioner's company's operations may have national or even 
global implications, "such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or 
medical advances," within the refrigeration equipment industry, the grocery industry, the food service 
industry, or any other particular industry. Id. In turn, although the business plan in the record indicates 
that the Petitioner's company intends to employ 18 workers-including the Petitioner-in the job 
categories noted above, in I ISouth Dakota, the record does not establish how employing 18 
workers in those job categories in I I South Dakota, demonstrates "significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or . . . other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." Id. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. See 
id. We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. 
See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. As noted above, 
we also reserve our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the Petitioner is eligible for 
second-preference classification. See id. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4