dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Sales And Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 6, 2024 In Re: 30978398 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of sales and marketing, 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. 1 
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 classification's job offer requirement, 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has 
national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance requirement of the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Because this 
identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar prongs.2 
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. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Next, a 
petitioner 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. at 889, provides the 
1 We note that the Texas Service Center approved Petitioner's Form I-140 Petition (receipt for an alien 
of extraordinary ability as a general and operations manager on March 11, 2024. 
2 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
I I
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion,3 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 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree.4 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for anational interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of sales and marketing, states that he has more 25 years of 
experience in the field. He plans to put that experience to use in developing a marketing consulting 
firm that he has established in Florida. This company "will offer a one-stop-shop platform that will 
link donors and causes and help organizations in their marketing and fundraising strategies." The 
Petitioner posits that his company will "target the nonprofit industry" and provide "an entire 
marketplace for nonprofit organizations that do not have e-commerce platforms established." 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of his education and experience, a "definitive 
statement" describing his proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a national interest waiver, a 
letter from counsel, a business plan, an expert opinion letter, recommendation letters, and industry 
reports and articles. 
Following initial review, the Directed issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish his eligibility for the national interest 
waiver. The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes a letter from counsel, a properly signed Form 
1-140, and the resubmission of evidence already in the record. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner had 
demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit and that he is well-positioned to 
advance his endeavor. However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that 
his proposed endeavor had national importance, or that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United 
States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. The Director 
determined that the record did not demonstrate the proposed endeavor's importance on a national level 
3 See also 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
4 The record is unclear on whether the Petitioner has demonstrated that they have a foreign equivalent degree to a United 
States baccalaureate and as to whether the Petitioner has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience 
in the specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) (emphasis added). We note that we have previously determined that the 
Petitioner had not put forward sufficient evidence to demonstrate his eligibility for advanced degree classification in the 
dismissal of another Form 1-140 Petition appeal. See In Re: 26929447 {AAO July 18, 2023). As we need not reach a 
decision on whether the Petitioner is eligible for EB-2 classification as we decide this case on another basis, we reserve 
this issue. 
2 
or that the endeavor's benefits would extend beyond the Petitioner's company, employer, or clients. 
Further, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or that it otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for the United States. Finally, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that his proposed endeavor would broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural and artistic 
enrichment. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director "imposed novel substantive and 
evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations." Further, the Petitioner argues that 
the Director did not give "due regard" to the Petitioner's resume, business plan, definitive statement, 
his "work in the field," letters of recommendation, or the submitted industry reports and articles. 
As to the Petitioner's contention that the Director imposed "novel substantive and evidentiary 
requirements." We disagree. Although the evidentiary standard in immigration proceedings is the 
preponderance of the evidence standard, the burden is on the Petitioner alone 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 l&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). The Director correctly states 
that the Petitioner must demonstrate that he is eligible for a national interest waiver by a preponderance 
of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76. Notwithstanding citation to a range 
of cases, the Petitioner does not analyze how the Director failed to properly consider the evidence in 
the record. Additionally, the Petitioner points to his resume and his ''work in the field" that go to the 
second prong of Dhanasar analytical framework which the Director determined the Petitioner had 
established. The articles and industry reports that the Petitioner references are general and do not 
discuss his proposed endeavor. Therefore, we conclude this argument is without merit. 
Regarding the national importance component of Dhanasar's first prong, we consider the proposed 
endeavor's potential prospective impact in determining whether it has national importance. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See 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. 
The Director noted in the denial that the Petitioner submitted the following evidence initially: a letter 
from counsel, a self-composed letter, an expert opinion letter, a curriculum vitae, a business plan, 
employment and recommendation letters, and information about the Petitioner's background, the field, 
and occupations. Next, the Director noted that the Petitioner had submitted the following evidence in 
response to the RFE: a statement from counsel, a personal statement, a resume, a professional plan, 
reference letters, and articles relating to the field of endeavor. While the Director may not have 
specifically discussed each piece of evidence in the record, the Petitioner does not show how any 
3 
I 
alleged unexamined evidence affected the Director's decision. Therefore, we disagree with the 
Petitioner's contention that the Director did not give "due regard" to evidence in the record. 
The Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor as an entrepreneur in the field of sales and 
marketing is "national in scope as his professional activities relate to matter of national importance 
and impact." Further, the Petitioner states that his endeavor will "generate substantial ripple effects 
upon key commercial and business activities on behalf of the United States." The Petitioner posits 
that his company will generate "employment for approximately 42 Americans by Year 5, generating 
a total payment of wages of $7,158,725." However, the income and personnel projections provided 
in his brief on appeal and in his definitive statement are insufficient to demonstrate the potential for 
substantial positive economic impact that would broadly impact the nation as they are based on 
unsubstantiated assumptions. Further, the business plan shows contradictory numbers to those 
mentioned in the brief. For instance, the business plan projects that total payroll expenditures in year 
5 will be $2,260,650. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). As the Petitioner has put forth inconsistent evidence to support his assertion, we can give credit 
to neither. 
The Petitioner states that his company "will be established inl I FL, in a Qualified HUBZone 
area." He asserts that that establishment will "help to fuel small businesses' growth in historically 
underutilized business zones." Additionally, the Petitioner states that his company will make an 
impact by "generating jobs for U.S. workers in these underutilized areas, improving the wages and the 
working conditions, and helping the local community bring investments to the region." However, 
there is no evidence that the Petitioner will be participating in the Small Business Administration's 
HUBZone program. And, while the Petitioner states that his company will beestablished in 
I the articles of incorporation submitted indicate an address in Florida, which is not 
located in a HUBZone. Last, the Petitioner has not provided evidence to demonstrate that the proposed 
endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects. 
Professor Iprovided an expert opinion letter on behalf of the Petitioner.5 We acknowledge 
that the expert opinion letter includes an asserted analysis ofthe national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. After introducing the Brazilian media market, Professor! Irelates that the 
Petitioner "has an outstanding reputation in business, communications and the creation of projects in 
Corporate Media and Ente1iainment industry." He further states that "[b]ased upon [the Petitioner's] 
experiences, he will be able to utilize his skills and knowledge to work in the Media and Entertainment 
Business, making contributions of major significance to The Arts and M&E Industry." The Petitioner 
does not mention this line of work in his proposed endeavor. As a matter of discretion, we may use 
opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 
5 We note that Petitioner's expert opinion letter includes a signature page signed byl land another signature 
page signed by Both signature pages are on I I letterhead. Review of the 
Petitioner's education evaluation shows that Iprovided a signature page for the evaluation. The signatures for 
match while he does not seem affiliated with the As it is unclear why two 
signature pages with different authors were provided for the expert opinion letter, we give the document less weight in our 
determination of the proposed endeavor's national importance. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
4 
791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in 
accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit 
sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. 
Even if we gave the expert opinion full weight, which we do not, we conclude that it is of little 
probative value as the opinion does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor and why it would have national importance. Professor I ldoes not explain how the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have substantial rather than marginal effects on the U.S. economy. 
While it may be true that data released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and the National 
Endowment for the Arts indicates that "the arts contribute $763.6 billion to the U.S. economy," 
Professor! ldoes not demonstrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will specifically be 
a significant, nationally important, part of that amount. Finally, we note that Professor I !states 
that "as a Producer ... there is no doubt that [the Petitioner] would work in the United States in an area 
of ... national importance." Again, the Petitioner states that he is an entrepreneur in the field of sales 
and marketing. Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and 
sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id.; see also 
Matter of O-M-O-, 28 l&N Dec. 191, 197 (BIA 2021) ("by submitting fabricated evidence, the 
appellant compromised the integrity of his entire claim") ( cleaned up). Inasmuch as the Petitioner has 
provided an inconsistent account of his proposed endeavor, we are unable to determine that value of 
the expert opinion letter to corroborating his endeavor. 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further 
discussion of the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. As noted above, we 
reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
111. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5