dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Tourism Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 11, 2024 In Re: 31461010 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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, 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 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 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, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner intends 
to "[e]stablish a Sales & Marketing Representation Organization that will globally promote 'smaller' 
United States destinations beyond the 'Traditional' Top 20. This will be done by implementing a 
grass-roots approach in every state, region, city, and small town while using a Collaborative 
Destination Marketing Model to market different businesses as a single product." The Petitioner 
proposes to focus on drawing visitors from Spanish-speaking countries to "increase International 
Travel at a regional and local level" through development of an "International Traveler database" and 
the use of "Integrated Marketing Campaigns," sales, public relations, and market research. 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not the 
national importance, of the proposed endeavor. 2 
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 specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner contends that international tourism to the United States had a large impact on the U.S. 
economy prior to the Covid-19 pandemic and that "[t]he United States needs to restore international 
travel for the economy and American society to recover folly." On appeal, he emphasizes the positive 
economic and social effects of tourism and points to documentary evidence he previously submitted. 
However, the matter here is not whether tourism is nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of establishing a sales and 
marketing organization to promote tourism to destinations in the United States beyond the top 20 most 
visited cities. The Petitioner initially submitted articles and data relating to the importance of tourism 
and its impact on the U.S. economy in general, the numbers of international visitors to the United 
States, the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on tourism, general information about rural tourism, and 
the goals of the National Travel and Tourism Office to increase tourism. However, this information 
relates to tourism in general and does not provide relevant information supporting the Petitioner's 
claim that his specific proposed endeavor is nationally important. In response to the Director's request 
for evidence, the Petitioner provided additional information about tourism in general and its 
importance to local economies, articles on cultural heritage tourism, a document about the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency's program to support development of the "recreation economy" in 
rural communities, and a National Travel and Tourism Strategy paper briefly mentioning goals of 
promoting tourism to underserved communities. However, this evidence is still general in nature and 
does not specifically address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of promoting tourism in cities beyond 
2 The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director also denied his petition based on findings that he is not well positioned 
to advance the proposed endeavor and that he had not shown that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus, of a labor ce1tification. However, the Director did not reach those issues 
because the Petitioner has not shown the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
2 
the top 20 most visited. 3 Furthermore, other than stating generally that he plans to bring tourism to 
lesser-known areas, the Petitioner did not specify any towns, cities, or regions in which he intends to 
focus his efforts. 
In Dhanasar, we 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 importance." Id. 
at 890. Although the Petitioner submitted some general information about rural tourism, he did not 
indicate in his proposed endeavor an intention to focus on rural tourism or in an economically 
depressed area. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. Here, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his business would largely influence the field and rise to the 
level of 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. The record does not show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's endeavor 
sufficiently extends beyond his prospective clients or employees to impact the field or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, while he provided a business plan for his proposed company, the Petitioner did not present 
any supporting evidence corroborating the assertions and figures. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how his business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible or 
plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. Although the business plan forecasts $.3 million in revenue in the 
first year and growth to $8.5 million by the fifth year, the Petitioner did not establish the significance 
of this data to show that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Similarly, even though 
the business plan claims "a small team of employees" including a "CEO/President," "Sales and 
Marketing Manager," "Operations Manager," "Finance Manager," "IT Manager," and "a Network of 
Destination Managers," the Petitioner did not specify the total number of individuals he plans to 
employ or demonstrate the relevance of these numbers and show that future staffing levels would 
provide substantial economic benefits to any particular region or the U.S. economy more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner, for instance, did not establish that such 
employment figures would utilize a significant population of workers in any area or would 
substantially impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. For all these 
reasons, the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective 
clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level 
of having national importance or that it would offer substantial positive economic effects. 
3 The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the 
national importance part. 
3 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis ofthe Petitioner's eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 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 applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
4