dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Sustainable Products

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WL. 10, 2023 In Re: 27441950 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national 
interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. 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, determining the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the three-prong analytical framework. See 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889-90 (AAO 2016). 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
The Petitioner intends to "develop, produce, and sell environmentally friendly cleaning and personal 
hygiene products in an innovative and sustainable way" through her company.I II I located inl IFlorida. On appeal, as it specifically relates to the first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Petitioner emphasizes her "more than nineteen (19) years of 
progressive experience," "expertise and extensive experience," "professional record," "unique 
expertise and skills," "business achievements," and "agribusiness background." 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 
1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting 
and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has 
squarely confronted this issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Court of 
Appeals in holding the appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). The Director thoroughly reviewed and analyzed the 
Petitioner's national importance claims under the first prong ofDhanasar, including her business plan. 
Specifically, the Director discussed the business plan's assertions of hiring and capital projections, 
including revised claims in an updated business plan in response to the Director's request for evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not address any of the Director's specific findings, such as the reliability 
and credibility of the plan's figures. Instead, the Petitioner repeats that she will "share her unique 
expertise and skills by developing her environmentally friendly products company in the State of 
Florida." 
As it relates to the Petitioner's experience and ability claims, those relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. Moreover, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of her business rather than 
the importance of small businesses, entrepreneurism, and environmentally friendly practices. 1 The 
relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; 
instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 
889. Further, "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. Also, "[a]n endeavor that has particularly 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. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established her 
proposed endeavor sufficiently extends beyond the company and its clientele to impact the industry or 
the field more broadly, at a level commensurate with national importance. In Dhanasar, we 
determined 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. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how her proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise 
offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Id. at 890. 
Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. 2 Further analysis of her eligibility under the 
second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 3 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 As correctly indicated by the Director, the Petitioner's submission of industry articles and reports relates to the substantial 
merit of the proposed endeavor rather than the national importance. 
2 See Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2