dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Textile Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WL. 11, 2023 In Re: 27416742 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur who imports and distributes textile products, seeks employment-based 
second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for a 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 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. 
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. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Id. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that users may, as matter of discretion, 1 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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner has 
established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in 
the national interest. 
The record includes a business plan explaining that the Petitioner currently operates a U.S. branch of 
a textile manufacturing company in Brazil, and that the branch currently imports and sells its products 
wholesale. The business plan states that the Petitioner intends to open a warehouse in I I 
Florida, to import and process textiles to be sold as final products, creating twenty-seven jobs. In a 
personal statement, the Petitioner provided the following: 
My specific endeavor will potentially impact the U.S. in the following ways: 
• Overall U.S. job creation and tax revenue; 
• Designing, implementing, and managing all activities in the business development 
and management foreign trade, strategic planning, and leadership areas of business; 
• Serving economically underserved and rural communities, with my expertise in the 
textile, international organizations management, air cargo, and craft/floral 
industries to streamline their business area, as well as promote the creation ofjobs; 
• Aiding and providing communities with consultancy services in business areas, 
specializing in business development and management, foreign trade, strategic 
planning, and leadership; 
• Providing integral guidance and advisement to U.S. companies doing or planning 
to do business in Brazil seize new business and investment opportunities; and, 
• Network with industry peers, competitors, and prospective clients to continuously 
develop new business opportunities. 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the 
Director concluded that the record did not establish that the endeavor is of national importance. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that users "erroneously denied" the petitioner and "imposed novel 
substantive and evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations." The Petitioner, 
however, does not specify how the Director erred or what factors in the decision were erroneous. 3 The 
1 See also 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). 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 An appeal must specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
2 
Petitioner also contends, without farther explanation, that the Director applied a stricter standard of 
proof than that of preponderance of the evidence 4 and disregarded the evidence submitted. The 
Petitioner provides a brief that emphasizes the Petitioner's qualifications as an entrepreneur and asserts 
that the evidence ofrecord establishes the national importance of the proposed endeavor. On appeal, 
the Petitioner states the following: 
Appellant's proposed endeavor [will] promote business activities by enhancing the 
sales and revenue capabilities of U.S. companies, prompting growth within small and 
medium sized businesses, streamlining the U.S. business ecosystem, generating jobs, 
and improving other economic initiatives .... 
For the reasons provided below, we agree that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
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 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The business plan and personal statement in the record indicate that the Petitioner wishes to expand 
his business in the United States. Although the business plan specifies that the Petitioner's "main plan 
is to have a warehouse in I I ..to import the gross product to create new shapes, designs in 
warehouse, pack kits and provide different final products ready to use," his personal statement 
provides a more general description of his endeavor: 
My career plan in the United States is to continue working as an Entrepreneur, 
developing new enterprises for the North American market and generating more direct 
and indirect jobs through my endeavors. I intend to continue expanding, maintaining 
good working relationships with investors, and identifying any opportunities for 
growth. I have plans for future business expansion and I will continue to facilitate the 
creation of jobs within the U.S. I have the experience and skills to navigate lucrative 
business projects and my unique expertise will surely provide guidance and success in 
the textile, international organizations management, air cargo, and craft/floral 
industries. 
The business plan also speaks generally about the role of technology in business, business management 
systems, how businesses provide value to economies, and the textile industry. The record includes 
several articles discussing immigrant entrepreneurship, as well as a report on the airline industry. 
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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we farther 
noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]n undertaking 
4 See INS v. Cardoza-Foncesca. 480 U.S. 421,431 (1987) (discussing "more likely than not" as a greater than 50% chance 
of an occurrence taking place). 
3 
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 importance." Id. at 890. Further, 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. 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. 
Much of the evidence of record related to the Petitioner's endeavor does not discuss the Petitioner's 
specific intentions, but is general in nature, covering issues in the business of importing and exporting. 
The portion of the business plan that provides details concerning the Petitioner's anticipated business 
growth discusses traditional marketing strategies and "an estimate of [the company's] financial 
behavior in the next 5 years of operation," anticipating a total of $353,871.84 in taxes paid by the fifth 
year of the company's operation, as well as the creation of twenty-seven direct jobs and 135 indirect 
jobs. However, the origins of the figures presented are not clear, and the record does not contain other 
objective evidence to support the estimates forecasted; the business plan is not supported by evidence 
showing how the business's growth projections will be realized. Further, while the Petitioner states 
in his brief that he expects a "total investment of $787,231.50" during the first five years of the 
operation of his business, he does not identify the source of this investment beyond speculation that 
profits from the company will be invested into the company. The Petitioner's unsupported statements 
are insufficient to meet his burden of proof A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The evidence of 
record does not demonstrate that the endeavor realistically has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic benefits for the United States. The Petitioner 
has not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility 
under the Dhanasar framework. 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 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 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor has national importance. As the 
Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not 
established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The petition will remain denied. 
4 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5