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: 29847021 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a security manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as amember of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as anational 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 consulting and services business in the United States 
having worked in security management, investigations, and fraud prevention for corporations and 
government entities in Brazil. The Director determined that the Petitioner established eligibility as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The record shows that the Petitioner is an 
advanced degree professional. 
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 
while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, he did not establish 
that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. The Director further found that the Petitioner did not establish he is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under the second prong of Dhanasar, or that on balance, 
waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States under the third prong of Dhanasar. 
Upon de novo 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.3 
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 consulting and services business inl IMaryland 
for which he would be its chief executive officer and head of security. The Petitioner's business plan 
indicates that the business would provide its services to private companies and government 
organizations with its main services to include: private safety and security; tactical security 
operational management; logistics applied to security; physical security, threat, and risk assessments; 
crisis and security management; emergency response planning; compliance and corporate 
investigations; internal audits; developing, implementing, and monitoring electronic forensic teams; 
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 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
unarmed guards; installation and monitoring of electronic security; antifraud training; safeguarding 
assets, employees, workplaces, and real estate for companies; and active shooter training. We agree 
with the Director that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit. 
Even though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Director found that the 
Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has the potential to have broader implications 
in his field or would have benefits to the regional or national economy as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Therefore, the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish his burden in meeting the national 
importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director "did not apply the proper standard of proof ... , 
instead imposing a stricter standard, and e1roneously 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 impmiance and 
the shortage of professionals in his field. 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 relies on his professional knowledge and expertise to counter the Director's 
determination that the record does not sufficiently demonstrate the broader implications of his 
proposed endeavor. The Petitioner argues, "It's essential to recognize [the Petitioner's] proficiency in 
security, weapons, tactical strategy, training, strategic planning, and leadership holds immense 
potential to not only impact national security but also to contribute to global security advancements." 
He further stresses his more than 25 years of professional experience arguing, "[The Petitioner's] 
specialized knowledge has the potential to usher in innovative security practices, a crucial aspect in 
the efforts of U.S. companies, agencies, and organization to fortify against threats and ensure public 
safety." 
However, the Petitioner's reliance on his professional experience and knowledge to establish the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor is misplaced. His professional experience and 
knowledge relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here 
is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance 
under Dhanasar 's first prong. 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. See id. at 889. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did 
3 
not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact the field more 
broadly. Id. at 893. The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will 
substantially benefit the field of security management, 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. The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's security 
consulting and services business would impact the security management field more broadly. 
The Petitioner argues that his proposed endeavor has national impmiance based on the business' 
potential economic impact and job creation within the underserved business community of I I 
Maryland, as outlined in the business plan. He claims, "This strategic decision is a testament to their 
dedication to fostering job creation and economic growth in an underserved area, fully aligning with 
the Dhanasar framework's requirement of significant potential to employ U.S. workers, especially in 
areas grappling with economic distress." (emphasis omitted). He further argues that his proposed 
endeavor has "the potential positive impact on the U.S. job market" based on evidence showing the 
need for professionals in his field. He claims that the business plan's financial projections show the 
business' potential revenue generation and "secondary economic effects" through "local spending and 
increased tax contributions," which "align with the benchmark of 'substantial positive economic 
effects"' set out in Dhanasar. (emphasis omitted). 
The record includes the Petitioner's professional statement and a business plan which emphasize the 
business' potential economic benefits. The plan also claims additional potential benefits, including 
promotion of public safety, helping address the shortage of security professionals through the 
business' hiring of qualified staffed personnel, helping reduce crime rate in violent U.S. cities, and 
protection of personal property. With respect to the potential economic benefits, the business plan 
explains that its initial office will be in an underserved business community in I I Maryland 
with plans to establish additional locations in underserved business communities in I I 
and I I Illinois. The business plan explains that the business would help the economic growth 
of these "economically distressed" cities by job creation and paying federal and local taxes. 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 and the 
generation of federal income taxes. The plan also includes the Petitioner's professional qualifications; 
the Petitioner's sole ownership of the business and his investment of $350,000 to start the business; a 
summary of the business' primary services and products; a brief summary of the business' mission, 
values, and goals; an analysis of the security services industry in the United States; 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 underserved business communities in Maryland, the District of 
Columbia, or Illinois, 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 
underserved communities or the United States. The Petitioner's claims that his security consulting 
and services business will benefit the local 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 the local communities or the United States. 
The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter 
4 
of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Also, without sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed 
job duties as the chief executive officer and head of security 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 189 direct employees, generate 
147 indirect jobs, and generate almost one million dollars 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 the underserved business communities and the United States. While the Petitioner 
expresses his desire to contribute to the United States and its underserved 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 economically underserved areas of Maryland, the District of Columbia, or Illinois. 
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 189 direct jobs, generating 147 indirect jobs, and generating almost a million 
dollars in taxes over a five-year period rises to the level of national importance. 
Through generation of jobs and business income, the Petitioner stresses on appeal the economic 
importance of immigrant entrepreneurs on the U.S. economy and on small businesses. 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 the record 
includes news articles relating to the importance of immigrant workers in the United States. We 
recognize the significant contributions to the United States from immigrants who have become 
successful entrepreneurs; however, merely working in the security management field or starting a 
security consulting and services 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 explanation of successful entrepreneurial businesses, and 
that the Petitioner would be of great value to U.S. organizations. He explains the importance of 
businesses having competent business development and sales professionals as a link between the 
businesses and their served markets. The reports and articles in the record mainly focus on the impact 
of the COVID-19 pandemic on the physical security job market; the benefits of pandemic response 
security guards, the importance of armed security, the history of security consultants and security 
guard careers, job responsibilities of security consultants, the demand for law enforcement, and a2022 
industry analysis of security services in the United States. 
We recognize the importance of the security management industry and related careers; however, 
merely working in the security management field or starting a security consulting and services 
5 
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 Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 l&N Dec. at 889. As stated earlier, the evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's security 
management consulting business would impact the security field more broadly. 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 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stating, " [The Petitioner] will work in an area of 
substantial merit and national importance." (emphasis omitted). The opinion describes the job 
responsibilities of security officers; the demand for security officers throughout the world; the 
importance of security services to economic growth by reduction of crime; and the prevalence and 
costs of gun violence. The opinion states that U.S. companies would benefit from the Petitioner's 
expertise and knowledge in public and private security. Instead of focusing on the Petitioner's specific 
proposed endeavor having a prospective impact in the security management field, the opinion focuses 
on the importance of the security management industry and how the Petitioner's experience would be 
beneficial to U.S. companies. The opinion also lacks relevance since it does not address the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor of establishing a security consulting and services business. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. 
Matter of Caron Int '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). Stating that the Petitioner's professional 
experience would support an important industry is not sufficient to meet the "national importance" 
requirement under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has the potential to extend beyond his 
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 consulting and services business offers original 
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 
consulting and services 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 
6 
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). 
111. 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 a matter of discretion. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7