dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Security Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 20, 2024 In Re: 30164596 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in security consulting, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. 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. § 1 l 53(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner qualified 
for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions with an advanced degree, but that the record 
did not establish his eligibility for a waiver of the job offer requirement 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 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. If a 
petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they 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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
• 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. 
Id. 
TI. 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 a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner previously stated that he plans to work as a 
correction officer/entrepreneur, and he indicated in his business plan ( dated September 2022) that he 
intends to develop an [sic] 
Security Services firm that provides Resocialization and Rehabilitation [ o] f Former Prisoners Consulting 
Services, Security Surveillance Services, Security Key Performance Indicators Implementation Project, 
Personal Security - Bodyguard Services [ a ]nd Aerial Surveillance Services planned to be headquartered 
in Florida with two business units in Texas and California." 
The Petitioner's business plan includes industry and market analyses, information about the company 
and its services, financial forecasts and projections, marketing strategies, a discussion of the 
Petitioner's education and work experience, and a description of company personnel. Regarding 
future staffing, the Petitioner's business plan anticipates that his company will employ 15 personnel in 
year one, 26 in year two, 38 in year three, 51 in in year four, and 82 in year five, but he did not elaborate 
on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees. 
Furthermore, while his plan offers revenue projections of $576,000 in year one, $1,212,000 in year 
two, $1,760,000 in year three, $2,220,000 in year four, and $3,940,000 in year five, these projections 
are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved. 
The record also includes, but is not limited to, articles about entrepreneurship and the role of 
immigrants as entrepreneurs, small businesses, and the field of correctional officers and accompanying 
issues; and information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook 
related to correctional officers, bailiffs, and jailers. Lastly, the record includes letters from prior 
coworkers, education and certification records, employer letters, a resume, immigration records, and 
an expert opinion letter. 
We agree with the Director that the submitted documentation establishes the Petitioner's endeavor has 
substantial merit. In determining national importance, however, the relevant question is not the overall 
importance of the industry in which the individual will work or the value of immigrant 
entrepreneurship; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential 
prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner offered multiple letters of support and an expert opinion letter discussing his experience 
working in the Brazilian prison system, as well as his education records and training certificates. The 
Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national 
importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director mentioned that the Petitioner's 
description of his proposed endeavor contains vague and conflicting information about his intentions 
for obtaining a national interest waiver, and therefore he did not establish the potential prospective 
impact of the endeavor. The Director noted that where such information is vague, it cannot be 
meaningfully determined whether the proposed endeavor meets the requirement of national 
importance. The Director then discussed the Petitioner's claims of economic impact due to job 
creation and the business being established in HUBZones in Florida, Texas, and California. 
Additionally, the Director discussed information from the business plan about job creation for U.S. 
workers in underutilized areas, improving the wages of U.S. workers, and helping local communities 
bring in investments. The Director stated the business plan does not show any activities beyond the 
printed examples of buildings in each HUBZone, merely printing out available office space in a 
qualified HUBZone without more does not show generation of jobs in an underutilized area, and the 
Petitioner did not show interest in the proposed endeavor from businesses within the HUBZones. The 
Director then noted several more evidentiary deficiencies, namely that the Petitioner did not show 
projected staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to the United States or the 
specific geographic areas where consulting would be provided, or that the company would employ a 
significant population of U.S. workers in those areas. The Director stated that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate the proposed endeavor offers substantial positive economic effects and that it has broader 
implications for the field of security rising to the level of national importance. Furthermore, the Director 
noted while the record indicates the Petitioner is opening a security service and consulting business, he 
provided information about correctional officers, jailers, and bailiffs and these occupations are not 
professional positions due to lack of a minimum U.S. bachelor's degree requirement. 
In his appeal brief, the Petitioner did not address several issues raised the Director. Specifically, he did 
not address the proposed endeavor containing vague and conflicting information, the deficiencies in 
the business plan related to HUBZones, the lack of information about projected staffing levels 
providing substantial economic benefits in specified areas or that the company would employ a 
significant population of U.S. workers in those areas, and why he provided information about 
correctional officers, jailers, and bailiffs, which are not professional positions due to lack of a minimum 
U.S. bachelor's degree requirement. 
Rather, the Petitioner argues that the Director erroneously imposed a stricter standard of proof. With 
respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that they meet each eligibility 
requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what they claim is "more likely than 
3 
not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a pettt10ner has met their burden under the 
preponderance standard, USCIS considers not only the quantity, but also the quality (including 
relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 
77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, the Petitioner does not specifically identify statements in the 
Director's decision applying a higher standard of proof or imposing novel substantive and evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner mentions that he has over seven years of experience in the security services field, and with 
his skills and expertise he will be able to control and resolve conflicts, attract investments, and expand 
throughout the United States. 2 He also mentions that his work experience will help him successfully 
manage his business, and his direct knowledge of security services will benefit U.S. companies and 
individuals that need qualified professionals. The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, however, 
focuses on the proposed endeavor and not on the Petitioner's prior work in the field. The national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands separate and apart from his education, skills, 
and job experience. 3 
The Petitioner points to industry reports and articles in contending that his proposed work is of national 
importance. He claims that a business development professional is inherently best equipped to prevent 
the failure of a business, is key to a company's financial stability, and improves, services, products, 
and business practices. Again, the issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which the individual will work; rather we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Additionally, the Petitioner cites to information from public policy organizations, news media, and 
U.S. federal agencies to show the overall value of immigrant entrepreneurship, but he has not 
demonstrated how operating a security consulting company as contemplated by his specific proposed 
endeavor rises to a level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we 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 Petitioner also claims that his proposed endeavor stands to affect the national economy by 
"offering economic convenience and agility" to "small and medium-sized U.S. companies," 
"promoting growth and expansion and driving change with innovation," "stimulating the domestic job 
market," and generating "new jobs for American workers." The Petitioner, however, has not provided 
evidence demonstrating that his proposed security consulting business 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. 
Furthermore, while any basic economic activity has the potential to positively affect the economy to 
some degree, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the potential prospective impact of his proposed 
2 The Petitioner also references ten years of experience in the occupational and health safety management industry, but 
this statement appears to be an error. 
3 See Dhanasar at 890. 
4 
endeavor stands to offer broader implications in his field or to generate substantial positive economic 
effects in the region where his company will operate or in other parts of the United States. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide security consulting services to his company's 
future clients, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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, we conclude the 
Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company 
and its clientele to impact his field, the consulting industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. Specifically, he has not demonstrated that his company's future staffing levels and 
business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida, Texas, California, or the 
United States. While the Petitioner claims that his company has growth potential, he has not presented 
evidence indicating 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, although the Petitioner asserts that his endeavor stands to generate jobs for U.S. workers, he 
has not offered sufficient evidence that his endeavor offers Florida, Texas, California, or the United 
States a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. 
The Petitioner has not established that he meets the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. Therefore, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue 
is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments 
regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5