dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Security Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 20, 2024 In Re: 29849973 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a security management specialist and entrepreneur, 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. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that although 
the Petitioner established eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, the record did not demonstrate his eligibility for the requested national interest 
waiver. 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 apreponderance 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 a/Chri sta's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. An 
advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree.1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or aforeign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
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 USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion,2 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. 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to establish a security management consulting business in Florida. The 
Director determined that the Petitioner established eligibility as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree.3 We agree with the Director's determination. 
However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the requirement 
of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Director found that 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate meeting any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. The Director determined that the record did not show that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit or is of national importance; that the Petitioner is well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor; and 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. Upon de nova review, we agree 
with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a waiver of the labor 
certification would be in the national interest.4 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. In determining national importance, 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." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 
at 889. 
The Petitioner proposes to establish a security management consulting business for which he would 
be its chief executive officer and head security consultant. The Petitioner's business plan indicates 
that the business would offer consulting and training for personal safety and security; asset security; 
tactical security operations management; logistics for security; civil defense; weapons; and 
marksmanship. The business would mainly provide U.S. companies and individuals with services for 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
Circuit Court in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
3 To demonstrate he is an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner submitted his academic certificates, the 
accompanying academic transcripts, an academic evaluation, and letters from his previous employer. The record 
demonstrates that he holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in military science and at least five years of 
progressive experience in his specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
4 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
conflict resolution and public security; transportation of executives; safeguarding residential 
properties; and safeguarding company assets, employees, workplaces, and real estate. 
We disagree with the Director's analysis of the record and find that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
has substantial merit. The Director's analysis stated that the Petitioner intention is to continue 
employment in his field and that he did not "provide specific insight as to what he intends to do as a 
[s]ecurity [m]anagement [s]pecialist in the [s]ecurity industry." However, in the substantial merit 
analysis, the Director focused on the Petitioner's initially submitted professional statement and did not 
consider his business plan which details his intention to continue as a security management specialist 
by establishing a security management consulting business in the United States. We withdraw the 
Director's finding that the Petitioner did not establish the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor. 
The Director further found that the record did not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
the potential to extend beyond his business and clients at a level sufficient to demonstrate the national 
importance of his endeavor. The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director "did not apply the 
proper standard of proof ... , instead imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applied the law .. 
. . " (emphasis omitted). The Petitioner further argues that the Director "did not give due regard" to 
the evidence submitted, specifically the Petitioner's resume outlining his experience; his business plan 
describing his expertise and credentials and the benefits of his endeavor; evidence of his contributions 
to the field; letters of recommendation; and industry reports and articles showing his endeavor's 
national importance. Upon de nova review, we find the record does not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance element of Dhanasar's first prong, as 
discussed below. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence to evaluate 
the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues, "[The Petitioner's] proposed endeavor explicitly states its intention 
to promote economic development through various channels." He claims that his business will 
"generate substantial ripple effects upon key commercial and business activities on behalf of the 
United States ... by providing services that will address urgent matters regarding significant U.S. 
entities, such as the law enforcement sector and the criminal justice system - both which are 
intertwined with national security tendencies." 
The record includes the Petitioner's statement and a business plan which emphasize the business' 
potential economic benefits. The plan also claims additional potential benefits, including enhanced 
public safety, support of national security to government agencies, development of new technologies 
driving innovation in the security industry, and enhancement of the nation's international 
competitiveness as a leader in global security. With respect to the potential economic benefits, the 
business plan explains that the business' initial office will be in an underutilized business community 
inl IFlorida with plans to establish additional locations in underserved business communities 
3 
inl IIllinois andl !California. The business intends to hire, train, and offer volunteer 
workshops in these underserved business communities to generate interest in the security industry. In 
addition to benefiting these underserved communities, the business plan claims economic benefits to 
the United States through the business' creation of direct and indirect jobs for U.S. workers; generation 
of federal income taxes; stimulation of competition through its use of technology; and stimulation of 
the U.S. financial market with increased investment and profits. The plan also includes a summary of 
the security industry's primary services and products; the Petitioner's professional qualifications; the 
business' shareholding; a general summary of the business' mission, values, and goals; an analysis of 
its operational cycle, opportunities, and strengths; analysis of the importance of technology in 
business; an analysis of the security services industry; and the business' proposed marketing, staffing, 
and financial forecasts. 
However, the record does not sufficiently document the potential prospective impact, including the 
asserted economic benefits to Florida and the United States. The Petitioner has not provided 
corroborating evidence to support his claims that his business' activities stand to provide substantial 
economic benefits to the underutilized area of Florida or the United States. The Petitioner's claims 
that his security management consulting business will benefit the Florida or U.S. economy have not 
been established through independent and objective evidence. The Petitioner's statements are not 
sufficient to demonstrate his endeavor has the potential to provide economic benefits to Florida or the 
United States. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Also, without sufficient documentary 
evidence that his proposed job duties as the owner, chief executive officer, and head security 
consultant of his business would impact the security management industry more broadly, rather than 
benefiting his business and his proposed clients, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a 
preponderance of the evidence that his proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
The business plan projects that by its fifth year, the business will hire 40 direct employees, generate 
200 indirect jobs, and generate almost $600,000 in taxes. However, the record does not sufficiently 
detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections 
will be realized. The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence demonstrating that his 
business' future staffing levels and business activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits 
to Florida and the United States. While the Petitioner expresses his desire to contribute to the United 
States and its underutilized business areas, he has not established with specific, probative evidence 
that his endeavor will have broader implications in his field, will have significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers, or will have other substantial positive economic effects in an economically underutilized 
area of Florida. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See id. Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the record 
lacks evidence showing that creating 40 direct jobs, generating 200 indirect jobs, and generating 
almost $600,000 in taxes over a five-year period rises to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner also stresses the economic importance of immigrant entrepreneurs compared to native­
born Americans. The Petitioner asserts his "proposed endeavor is clearly of national importance when 
considering how much a professional of his caliber can contribute to the U.S. economy, regardless of 
a labor certification." His brief quotes news articles relating to the economic benefits of immigrant 
entrepreneurs, and his business plan also provides similar claims. We recognize the significant 
contributions to the United States from immigrants who have become successful entrepreneurs; 
4 
however, merely starting a security management consulting business is insufficient to establish the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner further claims on appeal that the national importance of his proposed endeavor is 
evidenced in industry reports and articles. He argues that the reports and articles show his endeavor 
would have "economic implications - which very much affect nationwide activities and business 
productivity." His brief provides a lengthy description of how criminals are increasingly using 
technology to commit crimes. He then points out that his business will be "fully equipped to develop 
a personal, prope1iy, and private security services company." ( emphasis omitted). He generally 
discusses that his business "will create value for U.S. organizations ... through improved performance, 
achieved by providing objective advice regarding the optimization of business security processes using 
respected industry methodologies as well as implementing effective preventative techniques." He 
argues that "optimizing business security functions for U.S. companies will ... directly impact the 
domestic job market, as improved industry patterns culminate in higher business demands and an 
increase in the creation of new jobs and workforce dependability." Also, his business plan provides a 
lengthy summary of the increase of cargo thefts throughout the United States and claims that the 
business could assist with the security for the cargo of businesses. 
The reports and articles in the record mainly focus on the demand for law enforcement and private 
security service professionals, increased crime in schools, and the benefits of security service 
professionals. Specifically, the industry reports and news articles relate to the shortage of law 
enforcement professionals, the U.S. military predicting war with China in 2025, school crime rates, 
size comparisons of police departments, gun violence in schools, law enforcement employment data, 
private security outnumbering government police departments worldwide, benefits of public safety 
and security, U.S. cities contracting private security companies, a 2019 industry analysis of security 
services in the United States, and a 2017 U.S. government national security strategy report. 
We recognize the importance of the security management industry and related careers; however, 
merely working in the security management field or starting a security management consulting 
business is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, of 
focusing on the importance of an industry or the need for workers in a specific industry, we focus on 
the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 l&N 
Dec. at 889. 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. The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor will substantially benefit the field of security more broadly, as contemplated by 
Dhanasar: "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or 
even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. In Dhanasar, 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 industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. 
economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
We note that the record includes an opinion from a lead instructor for United States Air Force Junior 
Reserve Officer Training Corps in Texas. The opinion includes an analysis of the national 
5 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stating, "[The Petitioner] would work in the United 
States in an area of substantial merit and national importance." (emphasis omitted). The opinion 
describes the security industry in Brazil, the importance of Brazilian businesses having a robust 
security program, and the expected increase in demand for security suppliers in Brazil. The opinion 
states that companies doing or planning to do business abroad in Brazil would benefit from the 
Petitioner's expertise and knowledge in military security. 
However, the opinion does not consider the Petitioner's proposed security management consulting 
business, as described by the Petitioner in his statements and in the business plan. Contrary to the 
opinion, the record does not indicate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor includes collaborative 
works between U.S. companies and Brazil companies, or that he is actively targeting U.S. companies 
that do business in Brazil, or plan to do business in Brazil. Where an opinion is not in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable, USCIS is not required to accept it or may give it less 
weight. See Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 817 (Comm'r 1988). The submission of letters from 
experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Matter of Caron lnt 'I, 19 
l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988); see also Matter of D-R-, 25 l&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). The content of the opinion is lacking relevance because it discusses how 
the Petitioner's expertise would be beneficial to U.S. companies planning to do business in Brazil; 
instead of addressing how the Petitioner's specified proposed endeavor would satisfy the national 
importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
We agree with the Director that the record does not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor extends 
beyond the Petitioner's business and his future clients to impact the field or any other industries or the 
U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Beyond general 
assertions, he has not demonstrated that the work he proposes to undertake as the owner, chief 
executive officer, and head security consultant of his proposed security management consulting 
business offers innovations that contribute to advancements in his industry or otherwise has broader 
implications for his field. The economic benefits that the Petitioner claims depend on numerous 
factors, and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between his proposed 
business' security management consulting work and the claimed economic and public safety results. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third 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 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). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as amatter of discretion. 
6 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7