dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Shooting Sports

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 6, 2023 In Re: 28819162 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in 
the alternative, as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business. See 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 EB-2 immigrant 
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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the 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 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 a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree 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. 
While 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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that , after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates : (1) that the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance; (2) that 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director's conclusions regarding whether the Petitioner is eligible for second preference 
classification are unclear. The Director determined the Petitioner satisfied at least three of the six 
exceptional ability criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). However, the Director further concluded that 
"[a] review of the evidence ... does not establish the [P]etitioner possesses a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field" and, thus, does not qualify for second­
preference classification as an individual of exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). We note 
that, in a prior notice of intent to deny (NOID), the Director acknowledged information regarding the 
Petitioner's academic history and stated, 'The evidence submitted meets the plain language 
requirements [of a member of the professions holding an advanced degree] at this stage of the 
analysis." The record does not reconcile why the Director addressed whether the Petitioner qualifies 
for second-preference classification as an individual of exceptional ability if the Director concluded 
the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree in a prior NOID. 
See section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
Because we nevertheless find that the record does not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a 
job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest, we reserve our opinion 
regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies second-preference eligibility criteria. See id.; see also 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"); 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). 
Initially, the Petitioner described the endeavor as a "plan[] to open a [s]hooting [a]cademy ... in the 
State of Florida ... to share my knowledge and ability to educate people about gun safety, shooting 
sports and specialized training for law enforcement." The Petitioner elaborated that his shooting 
academy would have "a gun range for pistol and rifle, classrooms and a store" and that he would hire 
"one more firearm instructor, a receptionist/office assistant, a salesperson and also an accountant." 
The Petitioner further stated, "we will be going out to schools and having presentations about guns 
and how to handle them, which will definitely be a huge help for everybody's safety around guns." 
In response to the Director's NOID, the Petitioner submitted a business plan, which reiterates the 
Petitioner's plan to operate "a shooting academy for beginners and professionals who wants [sic] to 
improve their shooting skills, firearm safety training location, shooting classes, seminars, and private 
training location, as well as a gun store, selling competition guns and equipment." The business plan 
indicates the Petitioner would own 100 percent of the company and work as its chief executive officer, 
2 
hiring four total employees in the first year, with job titles of "firearm instructor," "receptionist/office 
assistant," "salesperson/social media," and "accountant," respectively. The business plan indicates 
the Petitioner would not hire additional workers beyond those four positions during the first five years 
of operation. The Petitioner's own compensation is excluded from the "total personnel costs" 
calculated for the first five years of operation; however, the business plan calculates the "gross wages" 
of the company's four other workers to range from $153,960 in the first year to $169,960 in the fifth 
year of operation. We note that wages of $169,960 divided among four workers equals an average 
annual wage of approximately $43,000. 
The Director determined that "the proposed endeavor has substantial merit in an area such as business, 
entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, education, the arts, or social sciences." 
However, the Director concluded that "the evidence is insufficient to establish that the [P]etitioner's 
proposed endeavor . . . stands to have broader implications rising to the level of having national 
importance," as required by the first Dhanasar prong. The Director acknowledged that "the evidence 
reflects [the Petitioner's] work and training provided to his client's [sic] may have a positive impact 
on his clients use [sic] and operation of guns[;] however, this level of impact is not reflective of having 
national importance." The Director acknowledged information in the business plan submitted in 
response to the NOID; however, the Director observed, "It does not appear that the proposed endeavor 
will have a significant economic impact on the U.S. economy or an economically depressed area." 
The Director farther observed, "It does not appear that the proposed endeavor has the potential to 
generate a significant number ofjobs for U.S. workers." We note that the Director concluded that the 
record satisfied the second Dhanasar prong; however, the Director reserved an opinion regarding the 
third Dhanasar prong. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner references information in the record that provides generalized information 
regarding firearm training and competitions. The Petitioner also asserts that, although he plans to hire 
only four workers within the first five years of his company's operation, "[t]he United States has an 
intrinsic national interest in making sure small businesses succeed." The Petitioner farther states on 
appeal that "his main goal is to transfer all his knowledge and experience as a competitor of the 
shooting sport to individuals that potentially will develop into the athletes who will compete in 
different levels including the Olympics." 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 
"specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See id. at 889. Dhanasar provided 
examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first prong, having 
"national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that have broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
The information in the record, referenced on appeal, that provides generalized information regarding 
firearm training and competitions does not address the Petitioner, the "specific endeavor that [the 
Petitioner] proposes to undertake," or how the specific, proposed endeavor may have "national or even 
global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances" or broader implications, such as "significant potential 
3 
to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial pos1t1ve economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. Therefore, that generalized information is inapposite to 
determining whether the specific, proposed endeavor may have national importance. 
Next, the Petitioner's assertion that "[t]he United States has an intrinsic national interest in making 
sure small businesses succeed" inverts Dhanasar's national importance analysis. As noted above, in 
determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or 
profession in which an individual will work, nor is it whether there is a generalized interest in the 
success of a particular size of business. Instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 
"specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake" and whether it will have the type of 
broader implications, noted above. Id. at 889-90. Therefore, similar to the generalized information 
addressed above, whether the United States has some generalized interest in the success of small 
businesses is inapposite to whether the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor may have national 
importance. See id. 
Next, although the Petitioner shares his goal to inspire competitors who may become Olympic athletes, 
that goal relates to whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, not whether the proposed 
endeavor may have national importance. See id. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor of operating a business that sells firearms and related equipment, 
trains customers to use those firearms, and provides facilities for customers to use those firearms 
appears to benefit the Petitioner, as the owner of the business, and the business's customers. However, 
the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have the type of "national or even global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances," contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. Although the Petitioner intends 
to employ a firearm instructor, a receptionist, a salesperson, and an accountant for a total of four 
workers, the record does not establish how employing those four workers at some unspecified location 
in Florida, with an average wage of approximately $43,000, would have "broader implications, such 
as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area." See id. We acknowledge that the Petitioner also 
intends to provide gun-safety presentations at schools in some unspecified location. However, the 
record does not elaborate on this aspect of the proposed endeavor with information-such as the 
schools at which the presentations would be performed, the number of students enrolled at those 
schools and attending the presentations, and related information-to assist in determining how these 
presentations may have the type of "national or even global implications within a particular field, such 
as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area," contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We 
reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong, and 
whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. As noted above, we 
also reserve our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the Petitioner is eligible for second­
preference classification. See id. 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5