dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Security Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 31, 2023 In Re: 27440251 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a security consultant, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or of exceptional ability, 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 employment based second preference (EB-2) 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. See 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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job ofer, and thus of a 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 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 petition 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 . 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. 
Whilst 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 USCIS may as a matter of discretion 
grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the labor certification, to a petitioner 
classified in the EB-2 category if they demonstrate that (1) the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance, (2) 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. 
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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petition to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, indicate 
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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
We will address whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and 
thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's substantially meritorious proposed endeavor did not rise 
to a level of national importance as required by the first prong of Dhanasar. The Director did not 
make a conclusion about how well positioned the Petitioner was to advance the proposed endeavor. 
And the Director concluded that on balance of applicable factors, a waiver of the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus a labor certification, would not be beneficial to the national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erroneously denied the petition. The Petitioner 
specifically assigned error alleging the Director did not consider evidence submitted in the record that 
demonstrated that the Petitioner meets all applicable prongs under the Dhanasar framework and 
merited a discretionary waiver of the job offer, and thus the labor certification, in the national interest. 
2 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner initially described their endeavor as a "security instructor" who would "provide security 
instruction services to law enforcement professional and private security agents" as well as perform 
the duties of a "search and rescue service instructor." 1 Specifically, as described in their professional 
plan and statement, they would chiefly "continue working in the fields of security and search and 
rescue, specializing in strategic operations, air traffic patrol, in the use of equipment for air, water, and 
land search and rescue, and firearm training" using "skills and knowledge" to "provide consultancy 
and service in these fields." As part of their endeavor, the Petitioner would also "contact American 
defense and rescue equipment companies to work as [their] sales representative and serve as a point 
of contact [with] the Federal and State Governments of Brazil." 
In their response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner maintained that the thrust 
of their proposed endeavor was the provision of private security services and consultancy, security 
instruction, search and rescue services and instruction, and sales representation for American defense 
companies and rescue equipment manufacturers in Brazil. But the Petitioner also incorporated an 
entrepreneurial element whereby they would establish a new venture, "1995 - Security & Training," 
through which they would develop and direct a business to provide security services for personnel and 
properties and security consulting and training services. 
A petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit they are seeking at the time the petition is filed. 
See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petitioner may not make 
material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. 
See Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). The Petitioner's revisions here 
are troublesome. The activities of a security instructor differ manifestly from those of a security 
entrepreneur building and growing a small business. Materially different duties can tend to constitute 
a materially different endeavor and introduce ambiguities which prevent analysis into a proposed 
endeavor's substantial merit or national importance. 
But the record here supports a conclusion that the Petitioner's substantial additions to the proposed 
endeavor submitted in response to the Director's RFE described a manner or philosophy through 
which the Petitioner would carry out their duties of their proposed endeavor and not a different 
proposed endeavor. So the Petitioner's extensive revisions, whilst concerning, did not disrupt the 
character and nature of the proposed endeavor initially described by the Petitioner. 
B. The Proposed Endeavor's Substantial Merit and National Importance 
We agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the 
national importance of their proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. To satisfy the first prong under the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Petitioner must 
1 The Petitioner stated that a component of their endeavor, providing private security services, required licensure/licenses 
from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. There is no evidence in the record reflecting that the 
Petitioner has any relevant U.S federal or state licensure/licenses. Whilst possession of required licensure/licenses is a 
consideration under Dhanasar's second prong to evaluate whether a Petitioner is well positioned to advance a proposed 
endeavor, the analysis of the Petitioner's endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework is not 
influenced by the Petitioner's possession of any required license/licensure. 
3 
demonstrate that their 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. 
The record here supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, which 
intends to support community security, policing, and public safety, has substantial merit. To evaluate 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirements, we look to 
evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of their work. In determining national 
importance under Dhanasar, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See 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. The broader implications of the proposed endeavor, national and/or 
international, can inform us of the proposed endeavor's national importance. That is not to say that the 
implications are viewed solely through a geographical lens. Broader implications can reach beyond a 
particular proposed endeavor's geographical locus and focus. The relevant inquiry is whether the 
broader implications apply beyond just narrowly conferring the proposed endeavor's benefit. And 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. Thus, it is not what duties or what 
occupation the noncitizen will fill or perform but their actual plan with their occupation and duties that 
is examined. 
Although the evidentiary standard in immigration proceedings is the lowest 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 ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998); see also the definition ofburden 
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). First, a petitioner must satisfy the burden of 
production. As the term suggests, this burden requires a filing party to produce evidence in the form 
of documents, testimony, etc. that adheres the governing statutory, regulatory, and policy provisions 
sufficient to have the issue decided on the merits. 
The evidence and argument the Petitioner introduced into the record does not help them carry their 
burden of production and persuasion. In support of their claim that they can satisfy the first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Petitioner provided their professional plan, an expert opinion 
letter, recommendation letters, academic and employment records, professional licenses, certificates, 
awards and other recognition, employment letters, pictures and reports from government and industry. 
The Petitioner attempted to link their endeavor providing security services and training security 
personnel to an overall goal of improving the safety and security of people and assets in a variety of 
environments ( asset protection and search and rescue). The Petitioner's RFE response introduced 
documentation and information about an entrepreneurial endeavor, 1995 - Security and Training, 
which they would develop and direct as a conduit to provide the services described by their endeavor. 
4 
The Petitioner argued that the positive economic effects that would prospectively arise from their 
business endeavor had broader implications from the services to be performed by their endeavor rising 
to a level of national importance. 2 
The manifest thrust of the Petitioner's claim of eligibility for the act of discretion to waive the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, in the national interest comes from the 
Petitioner's claims regarding the importance of their profession, their past career as a member of the 
military police in their home country, and their dedication to their field. But these attributes, critical 
as they may be for the success of an endeavor, are not germane to the question of whether a proposed 
endeavor elevates to a position of national importance. We are not concerned with the individual 
petitioner when evaluating the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework; we are focused on 
the petitioner's proposed endeavor. The success of the endeavor, or attributes that could tend to make 
the endeavor more successful, are consequently not as important as determining whether the proposed 
endeavor itself stripped away from a petitioner, has attributes that would highlight the prospective 
positive impact of its broader implications or positive economic effects rising to a level of national 
importance. So we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that their proposed endeavor is of 
national importance. 
It is also unclear from the evidence in the record that the work of a single security services endeavor 
providing private security and security instruction, irrespective of that proposed endeavor's success or 
failure, would have a significant impact on the field beyond its immediate sphere of influence. The 
evidence in the record does not highlight how the prospective potential impact of the work of one 
professional or group of professionals in a security consulting company could have broader 
implications implicating the national interest. The Petitioner tries to highlight their endeavor's broader 
implications by linking it to the overarching desire of individuals and companies in the United States 
to have a safe environment where their possessions and their person are secure and protected. But, as 
we stated earlier, we do not view the broader implications of a proposed endeavor through a 
geographical lens. Whilst the safety and security of individuals and their possessions is of merit, the 
record does not sufficiently describe how the services the Petitioner would provide to individuals or 
entities for asset and personal protection implicate the greater national interest. The provision of 
security services directly benefits only those individuals or entities availing themselves of the 
Petitioner's services. For example, the record does not adequately describe how the strengthening of 
asset protection and security for those companies that engage the Petitioner's services would broadly 
implicate the asset protection and security for those companies and individuals beyond the Petitioner's 
sphere of influence. This is akin to how the benefit of someone's teaching is generally only directly 
beneficial to the students being taught and not wider population. In Dhanasar we discussed how 
teaching would not impact the field of education broadly in a manner which rises to national 
importance. Dhanasar at 893. By extension activities which only benefit a small subset of individuals 
and companies, like the Petitioner's proposed security consultancy, would not rise to a level of national 
importance. The record does not contain any meaningful analysis of the Petitioner's security services' 
broader implications or potential prospective economic impact rising to the level of national 
importance. And the letters of recommendation containing testimonials of the services the Petitioner 
performed do not describe how the benefits they have received connect to broader implications rising 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
to national importance or any nationally important economic impact. 3 In sum the record supports the 
conclusion that the potential impact of the endeavor of providing private security for personal and 
asset protection and related instruction would benefit only the individuals and entities engaging the 
service. 
The record also contains insufficient evidence to support the positive economic effects the Petitioner 
expects will be realized by their proposed endeavor. The Petitioner roots the potential positive effects 
of their unrealized security consultancy, 1995 - Security and Training, in their potential for job 
creation in areas experiencing high unemployment and revenue generation. The Petitioner 
optimistically expects that the endeavor would realize total revenue of $1,986,000 and an employee 
census of 38 people within five years of establishment. But the record contains insufficient 
documentation to support the Petitioner's projections. For example, the record does not support how 
the services the Petitioner provided would generate the income or what steps could be taken to entice 
employment in the particular area. The Petitioner contends that they plan to locate in anl I 
Florida "Opportunity Zone" which they indicate are low-income communities from designated census 
tracts. The Petitioner stated that they would establish their security consultancy in a~ !Florida 
"Opportunity Zone," because it is an area which they described as "riddled with crime." But the 
evidence in the record does not describe to what extent "Opportunity Zones" are "riddled with crime." 
Moreover, the record does not describe which specific "Opportunity Zone" the Petitioner intends to 
establish in. This impedes an evaluation of potential prospective impact the hiring spree the Petitioner 
intends to undertake and the broader implications arising from the employment of individuals in the 
endeavor in an "Opportunity Zone." 
The Petitioner also indicated in the record that a significant component of their endeavor would be a 
"security consulting and training service" for the purposes of offering "non-lethal training services" 
teaching clients "how to detect and prevent unauthorized activity." This personal security knowledge 
proliferation is akin to teaching activities. In Dhanasar, we considered a petitioner's teaching 
activities and concluded that teaching activities do not rise to the level of having national importance 
because they do not impact a field of endeavor more broadly than the immediate effect or influence 
on the cohort receiving the teaching. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. The record does not 
adequately support that the Petitioner's personal security knowledge proliferation through their 
security consulting and training service will have an impact on the field of security consulting in the 
United States. The record does not have a cognizable or detailed plan for reaching an audience wider 
than the individuals it will purportedly consult with and train in the future. Nor does the record 
illuminate how the Petitioner's services to present clients with "the tactics, techniques and procedures 
necessary to recognize, reduce and manage" personal security issues would have impact beyond the 
group of individuals or entities they may serve. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. See Matter ofCaron Int 'l, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, the submission ofletters from experts supporting 
the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. The Petitioner submitted a letter authored 
3 Much of the documentation the Petitioner has submitted focuses on their individual accomplishments and expe1iise when 
attesting to the national importance and substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. It is important to note that the 
Petitioner's accomplishments and expertise are more relevant to the second prong of Dhanasar, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Dhanasar at 889. 
6 
I 
by United States Air Force Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (USAF 
JR OTC). The letter's author, I I is not a personal security industry expert - they are ac=J 
lofthe USAF JROTC. The record does not make clear how their experience and individual 
qualifications render them a personal security industry expert such that their opinion could shed light 
on the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor. Setting aside the authors' credentials, we 
observe that much of the letter's content lacks relevance when it comes to the evaluation of whether 
the Petitioner's work rises to the level of national importance. The Petitioner planned on serving as a 
sales agent for American companies in the "defense" industry seeking to do business in Brazil as part 
of their endeavor. I !identifies opportunities for collaboration between United States and 
Brazil in common interest of defense, such as research and development, technology security, and the 
acquisition of products and services. But it is not clear from the record how these opportunities 
correspond to the personal security services and training that the Petitioner intends to accomplish in 
opportunity zones in the I I Florida area. And, even if we were to view the sales representation 
activities in isolation, it would still not have sufficiently demonstrated in the record what the broader 
implications of these sales activities would be that rise to a level of national importance. For example, 
the Petitioner has not sufficiently described in the record the broader implications of the potential 
prospective impact of proliferation of United States defense products in Brazil that rise to a level of 
national importance. 
C. Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
Since the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance of their proposed endeavor, the 
resolution of that issue by itself requires dismissal of their appeal. But since the Director's decision 
made no specific conclusions about the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar 's second prong, we 
will discuss whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
We conclude the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that they are well positioned to advance 
their proposed endeavor under the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. In evaluating 
whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor under the second prong of 
Dhanasar, we review (A) a petitioner's education, skill, knowledge, and record of success in related 
or similar efforts; (B) a petitioner's model or plan for future activities related to the proposed endeavor 
that the individual developed, or played a significant role in developing; (C) any progress towards 
achieving the proposed endeavor; and (D) the interest or support garnered by the individual from 
potential customers, users, investor, or other relevant entities or persons. 
As stated above, a petitioner's burden of proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well 
as the ultimate burden of persuasion. Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1142 n.3. The record contains evidence 
of the Petitioner's academic record, employment history, and professional recognitions such as awards 
and certificates. But simply having education, skills, and/or knowledge in isolation do not place a 
petitioner in a position to advance their proposed endeavor. This is only one factor amongst many 
factors which are evaluated together to determine how well positioned a petitioner is to advance a 
proposed endeavor. It is not clear from the totality of the evidence in the record how an individualized 
consideration of the multifactorial analysis under Dhanasar 's second prong would demonstrate how 
well positioned the Petitioner is to advance their proposed endeavor. 
7 
For example, the Petitioner's business plan identified a target audience for their proposed endeavor 
and listed a variety of ways in which they would engage with their target audience through website 
optimization and social media. But a search engine optimization and social media marketing plan to 
engage with individuals and entities seeking asset protection and personal security did not demonstrate 
a model for the actual activities that the Petitioner has developed or played a significant role in 
developing to advance their proposed endeavor. The business plan instead only placed heavy 
emphasis on what the Petitioner had done in their past and their qualifications to continue the same 
activities in the future. The record simply does not reflect any progress to achieving the proposed 
endeavor. 
And the record does not reflect how the Petitioner's prior activities as described in the recommendation 
letters is either a similar effort as that of their proposed endeavor or how it constitutes a record of 
success. And the recommendation letters the Petitioner submitted are not material, relevant, or 
probative evidence in the record of interest or support in the endeavor the Petitioner proposed in their 
petition. Whilst they speak generally of the Petitioner's realization of certain objectives and skill in 
their field, they do not identify any recognition, achievements, or significant contributions to their 
field that tend to reflect that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance their endeavor. 
So the Petitioner has not demonstrated with material, relevant, and probative evidence that they are 
well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not met the requisite first or second prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we conclude that they do not merit a favorable exercise of discretion to waive the 
requirement of a job offer, and therefore a labor certification. We reserve the issue of whether the 
Petitioner demonstrated categorial eligibility under the EB-2 classification and eligibility under the 
remaining prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework respecting whether, on balance of applicable 
factors, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of 
a labor certification. See INSv Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25 and Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 
n.7. 
In immigrant pet1t10n proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met their 
burden of proof with persuasive material, relevant, and probative evidence which by a preponderance 
demonstrates the national importance of their proposed endeavor. So their appeal must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8