dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Social And Cultural Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 29, 2024 In Re: 31840760 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an 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). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner warranted a waiver of the job offer and labor certification requirements 
for EB-2 classification in the exercise of discretion. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant 
to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts eligibility and argues the national importance of 
her proposed endeavor lies with the positive mental health effects it could have on the United States. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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 I&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: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
• 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 Petitioner, a citizen and national of Russia residing in the United States, seeks to establish an 
independent business in the field of social and cultural management. The Petitioner proposes to 
address various issues in mental health by establishing a business focused on the body-positive social 
movement. In support of her proposed endeavor the Petitioner provided a personal statement, brief, 
business plan, letters of support, expert opinion letters regarding her qualifications, copies of her 
academic credentials, samples of her past work, and articles regarding being an entrepreneur. 
The Petitioner summarizes her proposed endeavor and states: 
The company's overall goal is to advocate mental health and focus on community 
building that will provide cultural and social support, especially to people who are part 
of the body-positive community. The company's project will encompass educational 
programs, meetings with representatives of the body positive social movement, a book 
club, hiking walks, a dance club, a music club, and travel with community 
representatives. 
In her initial statement to the Director, the Petitioner stated she would implement her business plan by 
building social media communities and creating resources for those communities. She further states: 
I will be able to develop efficient approaches to design, planning, organization, and 
control which will allow me to solve the national social problems regarding body­
positive social movement via optimization of the processes of unification and cohesion 
of society. 
The Director issued a request for evidence seeking additional information to satisfy the three prongs 
of the Dhanasar framework. In response the Petitioner provided a new personal statement, briet: 
expert opinion letters, business taxes for the proposed endeavor, letters from former employers, and 
bank account statements. The Director determined that the proposed endeavor had substantial merit 
but the evidence provided did not establish national importance or eligibility under the other two 
prongs of the Dhanasar framework and denied the petition on that basis. 
The first 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. In determining 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Id. at 889. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director erred in their finding that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor lacked national importance. She further states that the submitted documents were intended 
to be a strategic vision for her organization and do not negate the broader potential growth of her 
business. The Petitioner argues that her business will "make a profound impact in the realms of mental 
health and physical well-being" and should not be judged solely on the potential economic outcomes. 
The Petitioner's business plan anticipates that the Petitioner's company will reach a total of 18 
employees in year five, with payroll expenses growing from $49,000 in year one to $225,000 in year 
five. She also projected generating $276,000 in revenue in year one, increasing to $1.4 million in year 
five. On appeal the Petitioner stresses that she has received assurances that a former employer will 
provide seed money for her endeavor in the amount of $113,300 and she will provide additional start 
up capital from her own savings. Nonetheless, the plan does not explain how her staffing and financial 
forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized, nor does the 
record contain evidence to support the business plan's financial projections. Moreover, the staffing 
projection indicated that the Petitioner would hire 5 project managers by year 5 at $60,000 per year 
each. In her total wage projections for year five she projected a total of $60,000 in salary for those 
positions rather than the $300,000 suggested by her staffing model. There were similar discrepancies 
between the wage projections and other positions identified in the personnel plan that call into question 
the accuracy and reliability of the projected economic impact. The preponderance of the evidence 
standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is probably true, where the 
determination of truth is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See id. Here, the lack of supporting evidence and 
contradictory financial details detracts from the probative value of the business plan. Even if we 
assumed all the projections in the business plan were accurate, the record lacks evidence demonstrating 
that its economic impact would be nationally important. 
Apart from the economic impact of the petitioner's proposed endeavor, she stresses the cultural 
implications of supporting the body-positive social movement and the potential impacts it could have 
on the overall well being of individuals. This determination hinges on an assessment of the broader 
societal implications of the Petitioner's contributions, requiring she demonstrate broader benefits that 
extend beyond the confines of a local industry. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Therefore, while 
the ripple effects of body-positive communities may signify positive developments within a narrow 
area, they alone may not suffice to establish the requisite level of national importance. Id. at 890, 
892. Thus, it remains incumbent upon the Petitioner to present compelling evidence of her capacity 
to significantly benefit the industry or movement as a whole, in accordance with the prevailing legal 
standards. We acknowledge the evidence supporting the potential positive effects of the body-positive 
social movement, as documented in the articles provided by the Petitioner, and the evidence reflecting 
the need for additional mental health resources focused on improving individual body acceptance. 
However, here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the scope of her specific project would reach 
the levels required to establish a cultural benefit that would rise to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner has therefore not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the 
prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 
3 
Because the Petitioner does not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she has not demonstrated eligibility for a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The identified basis for denial is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and 
appellate arguments regarding the second and third prongs under the Dhanasar framework. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4