dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Specialty Lighting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 14, 2024 In Re: 32495539 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chief executive officer (CEO) of a specialty lighting company, seeks employment­
based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the 
job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the Petitioner qualified for the requested classification and that a discretionary 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 pursuant to 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 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 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. 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 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 
thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner demonstrates 
that (1) the noncitizen 's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, in light of the nature of the 
noncitizen's qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen 
to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that 
other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's 
contributions; and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent 
to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, 
indicate 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a CEO. The Director of the Texas Service 
Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that he qualified for the 
underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an 
individual of exceptional ability. The Director determined that although the Petitioner met at least 
three of the six criteria, the record lacked evidence that the Petitioner's degree of expertise 1s 
significantly above that which is ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
A. EB-2 Classification 
With respect to the underlying EB-2 classification, the Petitioner contends that the Director 
erroneously misapplied the relevant law and overlooked evidence. The Petitioner further argues that 
he is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and that he possesses a level of 
2 
expertise significantly above the ordinary, "making him a true asset to the business of specialty 
lighting." 
The resolution of the issues pertaining to the Petitioner's eligibility for a waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus of a labor certification, under the Dhanasar analytical framework are dispositive 
of this appeal. For that reason, we will reserve consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility for the 
requested EB-2 category. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need 
not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter 
of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal in 
removal proceedings where an applicant did not otherwise qualify for relief). 
B. The Proposed Endeavor's Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The record shows 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to operate his company, _____ 
which aims to expand within the U.S. and internationally by offering consulting services across 
three key areas, commercial management advisory, partnership enablement, and export consulting. 
The Petitioner explains that his company will conduct thorough analyses of clients' commercial 
operations and craft tailored sales strategies, streamline the expansion of sales for special lamps into 
different countries, and provide a comprehensive approach to export process. The Director 
acknowledged that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and that he is well­
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Director determined, however, that the Petitioner 
did not establish the proposed endeavor is of national importance, and that, on balance, it would benefit 
the United States to waive the job offer requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director misapplied the legal standard and failed to conduct 
a proper review of the submitted evidence. For the reasons provided below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and therefore is not 
eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. While we do not discuss every piece 
of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
As previously noted, 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. 
The Petitioner maintains that his endeavor will significantly contribute to the nation's trade balance, 
enhance the economic reach of the country's manufacturers, support job creation both domestically 
and internationally, and will reduce unemployment. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the 
"potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. While the Petitioner claims that his 
company's operations will cause a "ripple effect on the economy," the Petitioner has not offered 
sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed 
endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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. Here, the record does not include adequate corroborating 
3 
evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in the 
specialty lighting field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive economic effects 
for the country that rise to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner argues that his proposed endeavor will significantly boost the local economy by 
injecting money through employee salaries, job creation, and increase tax revenues. The Petitioner, 
through his business plan, claims that his company will hire 20 direct employees by year five as well as 
gamer net sales of $1,912,294. Further, the Petitioner claims that a Regional Input-Output Modeling 
System (RIMS II) projects that the company will create 125 jobs in the next five years. The Petitioner, 
however, does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or adequately explain how 
these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized. The Petitioner must support his assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly 
attributable to his future work, the record does not show that the benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner contends his endeavor is "set to create a substantial positive impact on the U.S. 
economy" through direct and indirect job creation, sectoral growth, international trade balance 
contributions, innovation promotion, and skill development. The Petitioner further argues that his 
extensive professional experience and business acumen will be key to achieving these goals. Though 
we acknowledge the Petitioner's experience and skill set, the record does not show through supporting 
documentation how his specific company stands to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients 
to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. Moreover, although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and 
achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong. The 
Petitioner's educational background and professional experience are material to Dhanasar 's second 
prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they are 
generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor 
has both substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-91. 
The Petitioner also argues that his endeavor aligns with the government's ENERGY STAR program 
and other national initiatives. The author of the expert opinion letter emphasizes the importance of 
the specialty lighting industry. The author underscores the Petitioner's professional experience and 
claims that the Petitioner's company's focus on the specialty lighting industry aligns with "broader 
economic and technological trends." Although we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the 
submitted evidence, the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor will have broader 
implications beyond benefitting the Petitioner's clients and companies he elects to work with. 
Moreover, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
industry or profession in which the individual will work. Instead, we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. In Dhanasar, we further 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. 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 
4 
importance." Id. at 890. Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how he will positively 
impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move the U.S. economy on a broad 
scale rising to the level of national importance. 
It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without 
providing evidence to corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
2010). He has not done so. 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and also hereby reserve the appellate arguments 
regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. 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 I&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5