dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Security Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 18, 2024 In Re: 33967681 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a security consultant, 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner is qualified for the EB-2 classification or that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement is 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 l&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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&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: 
1 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 unpublish ed decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that he is an individual of exceptional 
ability and as such did not establish that he qualifies for the EB-2 classification. 2 Specifically, the 
Director concluded that the foreign language documents submitted in support of the Petitioner's claim 
as an individual of exceptional ability did not include a certification of the English translation that 
meets the regulatory requirements. 3 Regarding the Petitioner's request for a national interest waiver, 
the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish any of the three Dhanasar prongs.4 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the document translation certificates are sufficient, that he 
qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability, and that he has established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver under each of the three Dhanasar prongs. Because, as we discuss below, we conclude 
that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor, we need 
not reach the question of whether he qualifies for the EB-2 classification or the second or third prongs 
of the Dhanasar framework and we reserve our opinion regarding those issues. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as a security consultant. He states that he will establish 
a business which will provide consulting services for law enforcement and will conduct security 
program evaluations, provide technical assistance, and offer trainings. In determining that the 
Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the endeavor, the Director concluded that the 
evidence did not show that the Petitioner's services are better, different, or cost less than those already 
available in the United States. The Director also concluded that although the articles and industry 
reports in the record provide information about crimes statistics, they do not discuss the Petitioner, the 
proposed endeavor, or how the endeavor may have national or even global implications within a 
particular field. Additionally, the Director found that the Petitioner's support letters were insufficient 
because the letter writers did not include their resumes or other evidence to establish their expertise in 
the field of security. 
2 The Petitioner does not claim to qualify for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. 
3 Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCTS must be accompanied by a full English translation which 
the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to 
translate from the foreign language into English. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(6)(3). 
4 The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, that he is 
well-positioned to advance it, or that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
However, the Director did not make a finding as to whether the Petitioner established the substantial merit of the proposed 
endeavor. 
2 
In appealing the Director's findings regarding the national importance of the proposed endeavor, the 
Petitioner emphasizes his specialized knowledge and experience as a police officer in Brazil and 
contends that this experience makes him well-prepared to offer security consulting services. In 
response to the Director's concern about the expertise of the letter writers, the Petitioner notes that 
these letters were submitted by businesses. 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national or global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances, may have national importance. Id. Additionally, an endeavor that is 
regionally focused may nevertheless have national importance, such as an endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director that record does not establish the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor. While the Petitioner claims that he has significant experience and 
knowledge in law enforcement and security services, this claim does not help demonstrate the potential 
prospective impact of the proposed endeavor. Evidence of a petitioner's skills, knowledge, and record 
of success generally relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the [noncitizen]" and whether they are well-positioned to advance it. 
Id. The Petitioner must establish that his specific endeavor-to establish a private security consulting 
business-has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. While a petitioner's achievements 
in the field may be relevant in some circumstances in establishing the potential prospective impact of 
their endeavor, the Petitioner has not explained how his experience or knowledge demonstrates that 
the endeavor has the potential to impact U.S. national security, crime rates, the private security 
industry, or the economy at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Regarding the letters of support, we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that these letters were 
submitted by businesses, rather than by individuals specifically holding themselves out as experts in 
the field of security. This includes a letter from a client that expresses satisfaction with the Petitioner's 
services in setting up security systems and cameras and a letter from a business seeking a potential 
partnership with the Petitioner. Nevertheless, the letters do not sufficiently demonstrate that the 
potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. Although the letter writers speak highly of the Petitioner and the Petitioner's security 
consulting services, any successful business will presumably have clients who are satisfied with the 
business's services. The Petitioner has not offered, and the letters do not establish, a sufficiently direct 
connection between the Petitioner's proposed security consulting services and any potentially 
nationally important impact. 
The Petitioner does not raise any other claims on appeal related to the Director's finding that the record 
does not establish the endeavor's national importance. Moreover, upon de novo review, we conclude 
that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor, as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Therefore, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. We acknowledge the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to his qualification 
as an individual of exceptional ability and the second and third Dhanasar prongs but, having found 
that the evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as to national importance, we reserve 
3 
our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the remaining Dhanasar prongs or his eligibility 
for the EB-2 classification. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25 (stating that agencies are not 
required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 
see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where the applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the national importance requirement of the first prong of Dhanasar. We 
therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4