dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Security Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 17, 2023 In Re: 28428360 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a police inspector, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or, in the alternative, as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or 
business. 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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding 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. 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 l&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, under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate 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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 
2016), provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 
grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
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). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 3 Therefore, the sole issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner has 
established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in 
the national interest. In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that he meets the first and third prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that he meets all 
three prongs under the Dhanasar framework, and otherwise warrants a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. 4 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The record reflects that the Petitioner currently works in Brazil as a police inspector for the civil police 
department inl Iand as CEO of his own company. He previously worked as an associate 
in a law firm. On Part 6 of the petition, the Petitioner indicates he intends to work in the United States 
as an "Entrepreneur Director," and will "[p ]Ian, direct, and coordinate the operations of intelligence 
risk assessments." 
In his business plan and personal statement submitted at the time of filing, and in his updated business 
plan submitted in response to the RFE, the Petitioner indicated he intends to open his own security 
consulting firm,I IFlorida, and serve as its General Manager. The 
company "will advise businesses operating across industries ranging from construction, 
manufacturing, and transportation, to education, hospitality and many others to create a robust security 
environment." In addition, his proposed endeavor "will provide due diligence services to client 
companies, such as realtors and car dealerships, in the process of receiving investments from Brazil" 
in order "to ensure investments from Brazil in the U.S. are lawful and not at risk of money laundering." 
He noted that although his proposed endeavor would start in Florida, by its fifth year it "will be able 
to serve clients nationwide," creating direct and indirect jobs. 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 Although not indicated in the decision, the Director informed the Petitioner in the request for evidence (RFE) that he 
qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; and therefore, did not need to evaluate whether he 
also qualified as an individual of exceptional ability. 
4 On appeal, the Petitioner offers an impact analysis for his proposed business. However, we will not consider this evidence 
for the first time on appeal as it was not presented before the Director. See Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 
1988) (providing that if "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to 
provide it for the record before the denial, we will not consider evidence submitted on appeal for any purpose" and that 
"we will adjudicate the appeal based on the record of proceedings" before the Chief); see also Matter al Obaigbena. 
19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
2 
His business plans included industry and market analyses, business strategies, financial forecasts and 
projections, and a description of the company's proposed service offerings and personnel. With 
respect to future staffing, the plans project that the Petitioner's security business would hire nine 
employees in the first four years of operations. The business plans differ regarding their financial 
forecasts and projections, indicating the business would generate either $232,339 or $179,876 in total 
tax revenue and achieve either $225,967 or $163,727 in net income by its fifth year. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
To satisfy the first prong under the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Petitioner must demonstrate 
that his proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. This prong of the 
Dhanasar framework 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 Director concluded that the Petitioner established that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit 
but determined he did not meet his burden to establish the national importance of the endeavor. 
Specifically, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not shown how his proposed endeavor 
would have broader implications within his field that would reach beyond clients utilizing his services, 
or that it would broadly enhance societal welfare. The Director further observed that the record did 
not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, would 
impact an economically depressed area, or would have benefits to the regional or national economy 
that would reach the level of "substantial economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director did not give due regard to the Petitioner's initial 
business plan, updated business plan, personal statement, experts letters demonstrating the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor, and evidence of his professional experience and 
accomplishments "in safety, crime prevention, and crisis management strategies in Brazil." With 
respect to the national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner maintains that his business 
"will offer cutting-edge predictive crime analysis services, harnessing digital technologies," and will 
"influence the wider security industry to benefit the nation." In support of these claims, he points to 
the staffing and income projections in his company's business plan and updated business plan. He 
further references the U.S. Treasury Department's 2022 National Money Laundering Risk Assessment 
report regarding challenges facing law enforcement, regulatory agencies, and intelligence 
communities in combating illicit finance threats. 
For the reasons provided below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner's business plans and personal statement emphasize the challenges currently facing the 
U.S. government and private businesses in protecting their employees and assets, and he has 
referenced and provided industry and government articles and reports addressing national concerns in 
the field, including gun violence, surging homicide rates, rising rates of technology-based crime, and 
illicit finance threats. We do not question the significance of these issues and their direct bearing on 
public safety and security. The Petitioner also argues the importance of the private security industry 
3 
as a component of security and safety in the United States. When determining national importance, 
however, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the 
individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposed to 
undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
Based on the business plans submitted initially and in response to the RFE, the Petitioner has not 
shown how the private security services he intends to provide to individuals and businesses would 
have broader implications in the private security or public safety sector. He broadly states that his 
endeavor "will reduce crime rates and improve the perception of security among Americans," but the 
record does not provide adequate support for a determination that his specific proposed endeavor will 
have such a wide-reaching impact. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities 
did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more 
broadly. Id. at 893. Here, the record supports the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish what the broader implications of his work would be, or that 
his work would extend beyond his company and its clients to impact the private security services 
industry in which it intends to operate, or that it would broadly enhance societal welfare at a level 
commensurate with national importance. While the Petitioner proposes to perform work in an area of 
national importance, this is not necessarily sufficient to establish the national importance of the 
specific proposed endeavor. 
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 will be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. On appeal, the Petitioner 
~zes that he will establish his company in "the Central Florida area, specifically! land 
L___J" where it will generate "nine in-house U.S. employees in year 4" with an expected total 
payment of income and payroll taxes of approximately $232,339 in its fifth year. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's business plans, including its revenue and employment projections. As 
previously noted, the Petitioner's amended business plan does not corroborate the net income and 
payroll tax expense claims that the Petitioner makes on appeal. Rather, the Petitioner's amended 
business plan projects total tax expenses of $179,876 by its fifth year of operations. Regardless, the 
job creation and revenue projections included in the Petitioner's business plans are not supported by 
details showing their basis or an explanation of how those projections will be realized. Even if the 
Petitioner had established a sufficient basis for these projections, they would not establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. 
While the above sales forecasts, tax payments, and projected income statements contained in the 
Petitioner's business plans indicate that the Petitioner's company has growth potential, it does not 
demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would 
reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In 
addition, the Petitioner has not offered evidence that the area where his company will operate (Central 
Florida) is economically depressed, that it would employ a significant population of workers in that 
4 
area, or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit 
through employment levels or business activity. 
Without this information, he has not adequately supported his claims regarding direct and indirect job 
creation and the expected direct and indirect economic benefits of operating the proposed endeavor. 
As such, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting 
from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. For all these reasons, the Petitioner has not shown his endeavor 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or that the specific proposed endeavor would offer a 
region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or 
related tax revenue. 
In his personal statement and appellate brief: the Petitioner has placed considerable emphasis on his 
academic training in law, and his "extensive knowledge of safety, crime prevention, and crisis 
management strategies" gained from his professional experience in the law enforcement field. The 
record also contains recommendation letters from his employer in Brazil. While important, the 
Petitioner's expertise acquired through his academic and professional career primarily relates to the 
second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the 
foreign national." Id. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to 
undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. A determination regarding the 
claimed national importance of a specific proposed endeavor cannot be inferred based on the 
Petitioner's past accomplishments, just as it cannot be inferred based on general claims about the 
importance of a given field or industry. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner provided two expert opinion letters from professors at
I !University School of Law andl !university. In addressing the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework, both professors state that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor "impacts a 
matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of 
national initiatives." Specifically, they cite initiatives of the U.S. Justice Department's National Public 
Safety Partnership. However, the fact that a petitioner is qualified for and may accept a position in an 
industry or sector that is the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself: to establish 
the national importance of a specific endeavor. The Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential 
prospective impact of his specific endeavor in that area of national importance, and he has not met that 
burden. 
Further, both authors note the job creation and tax revenue figures contained in the Petitioner's initial 
business plan, and assert, respectively, that the proposed endeavor "will positively contribute to the 
nation's economy through job creation and taxes generated" and "has the significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers." They conclude that the Petitioner's work "has both substantial merit and 
national importance for the United States." Although the authors briefly address the Petitioner's initial 
business plan, they do not sufficiently address its prospective substantial economic impact nor do they 
discuss the implications of the proposed endeavor on the larger field of private security consulting 
services. For example, the professors have not offered sufficient evidence that the Petitioner's private 
security consulting services through his company would employ a significant population of workers 
in an economically depressed area, or that his endeavor would offer a particular U.S. region or its 
population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. 
5 
We observe that USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, 
professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of 
Caron lnt'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter of 
D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) ( discussing the varying weight that may be given expert 
testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). Here, much of the content 
of the expert opinion letters lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
For the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Because the Petitioner 
has not established his proposed endeavor has national importance, he is not eligible for a national 
interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. We reserve our opinion regarding whether 
the evidence of record satisfies the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 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 ofL-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 
Because the Petitioner has not met the required first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6