dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Security Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 20, 2024 InRe : 31381531 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, security management specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, 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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's 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 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. Exceptional 
ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, 
or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation that satisfies at 
least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). Meeting at least three 
criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. If a petitioner 
does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality 
shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the field. 
Once 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 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: 
• 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 qualified as an individual of exceptional ability in the 
sciences, arts, or business, 2 but did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the 
Dhanasar framework. For the reasons set forth below, we agree that the Petitioner has not established 
the national importance of his proposed endeavor and we will dismiss the appeal. 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with the Director's 
conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, which aims to provide security services with a 
focus on combatting drug trafficking, has substantial merit. Yet, the record does not establish that the 
endeavor rises to the level of national importance as contemplated in Dhanasar. 
The Petitioner states he plans to start a business in the United States to provide security services in 
several areas, including the area of combatting drug trafficking. With his initial filing, the Petitioner 
submitted a statement, a business plan, his resume, educational documents, employment letters, 
memberships in professional associations, several letters, and articles on the security industry. In 
response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted several reference letters, a letter of interest 
regarding the Petitioner's services, an expert opinion, and articles regarding the security industry. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the 
requested national interest waiver, as he did not satisfy the Dhanasar three-prong framework. With 
respect to the first prong, the Director determined that the Petitioner's endeavor had substantial merit, 
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 unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 The Director found that the Petitioner met the EB-2 immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability but 
did not offer any analysis on how this determination was made. Because the Petitioner's appeal is being denied on a 
separate basis, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the issue of whether the Petitioner meets the EB-2 immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
24, 25 ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 
they reached"); 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). 
2 
but further concluded that he did not establish his endeavor was of national importance as 
contemplated under the Dhanasar framework. Specifically, the Director concluded the evidence did 
not demonstrate that the Petitioner's endeavor would result in benefits extending to the security 
industry more broadly, result in substantial employment opportunities or increase societal welfare 
commensurate with national importance as discussed in Dhanasar. The Director further emphasized 
that the Petitioner submitted reference letters dated after the date the petition was filed, which were 
not relevant to demonstrating his eligibility for the benefit sought as of the date the petition was filed. 
As an initial matter, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erroneously disregarded evidence submitted 
in response to the request for evidence, specifically reference letters, finding that these letters presented 
facts which were created after the filing date. The Petitioner indicates that although these letters were 
dated after the filing date they were based on facts and events which occurred before the filing date. 
However, the Director's decision indicates they did not consider one letter expressing interest in hiring 
the Petitioner's company for security advice. It appears, from the decision, that the Director considered 
all other evidence. Notably, this letter expressed interest in possibly contracting with the Petitioner's 
company for security services and is more relevant to whether the individual is well-positioned to 
advance their proposed endeavor and is not relevant to our current discussion of whether the proposed 
endeavor is of national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor is of national importance because it has national and 
global implications, extending to South America. The Petitioner contends his proposed endeavor 
would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers and substantial positive economic effects in 
an economically depressed area; broadly enhance societal welfare by allowing for less drugs to enter 
the United States; and impact a matter that is the subject of national initiatives- drug use and drug 
trafficking. 
Upon de novo review, we agree that the record does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have national importance. In Dhanasar we said that, 
in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting 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 
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. To evaluate 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have a broad impact we look to evidence 
substantiating the "potential prospective impact" of his work. Although the Petitioner states his 
security services will extend nationally and globally, his business plan indicates he will start his 
services in Florida and then extend his prospective impact to Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas. The 
Petitioner's projections for his endeavor to expand are not supported by sufficient explanation and 
evidence and the plan does not detail how the prospective impact of his endeavor will reach beyond 
his clientele. Here, we find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands 
3 
to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact the security industry more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
Likewise, the Petitioner indicates that his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance 
because it will greatly improve societal welfare by decreasing the drug trade into the United States. 
However, although the Petitioner may have some success deterring drug traffickers through his 
proposed endeavor, he has not discussed in detail and documented how his prospective consulting 
business would have such broad effects, beyond his clientele, to affect the national welfare. 
In addition, the Petitioner has also not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to 
undertake would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have other substantial positive 
economic effects on a national level. Although it appears that the Petitioner plans to create 
employment opportunities in an economically depressed area, he has not shown that his company's 
future staffing levels, 22 employees, stands to provide substantial economic benefits in this area or in 
the United States. Similarly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes 
to undertake will offer other substantial positive economic effects for the country. While the Petitioner 
claims he will pay over a million in wages and generate over 2 million in revenue, he does not 
sufficiently support these projections with objective data as necessary to demonstrate that the benefits 
to the regional or national economy resulting from the undertaking would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Accordingly, the evidence submitted on appeal does not overcome the Director's decision that the 
Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. For all 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. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); 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. 
4