dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Training And Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 25, 2024 In Re: 29535208 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a training and development specialist, 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional 
ability and for a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 1 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, 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 2, grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• 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. 
1 The Petitioner did not claim eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
2 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). 
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. At initial filing, the 
Petitioner stated: 
My proposed effort is to open a Consulting, Advisory, and Training Company in 
Financial Management and the development of educational content and technologies, 
aimed, a priori, to serve Consulting Companies, Banks, Financial Institutions, and 
Credit Companies, and that will be in the~---------~(FL) region. Its 
legal nature will be LLC. This company will generate direct jobs and, above all, 
indirect jobs, which will impact the economy. Furthermore, my intention is to 
disseminate my knowledge acquired in these 12 years of experience training future 
professionals and thus providing to be substantial merit and of national importance. 
The Petitioner also provided a business plan for his proposed company. In response to the Director's 
request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted a revised business plan, an opinion letter, and claimed: 
My proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. My proposed 
endeavor is to open a Financial Management Consulting, Advisory, and Training, and 
educational content and technology development company .... 
The future company will focus on offering short-term courses and seminars for 
management and professional development. Training is provided through public 
courses or training programs for employers, and courses can be customized. Instruction 
can be provided at a company's training facilities, clients' premises, or educational 
institutions, in one's workplace, at home, and via TV or the internet. 
The main activities of this industry are: providing managerial development training, 
providing professional development training, providing quality assurance training, and 
providing business coaching. The main products and services of this industry are: 
professional development and training and educational development training. The 
future company will be located in the~---------~ (FL, USA) region. 
The company will operate as a LLC focused on businesses with B2B- (Business-to­
Business) type transactions. 
I emphasize that my real intention is to be able to start my business in the United States 
because I know the potential that the market offers and I know that I can meet this 
demand. What I need is the opportunity to put this project into practice here in the 
United States. 
2 
The Director concluded the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor's substantial merit but not its 
national importance. Regarding substantial merit, the endeavor's merits may be demonstrated in a 
range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
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. Although the Petitioner's 
brief mainly focuses on the importance of a wide range of topics, such as the global educational 
technology market, professional development training, educational training, industry performance, 
educational technology services and business coaching, establishments in the United States, and the 
national importance of entrepreneurs, critical and emerging technologies, and STEM (sciences, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics), the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance 
of his specific, proposed endeavor of his consulting, advisory, and training company rather than the 
importance of the overall topics, fields, or industries. 3 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. 
Furthermore, with respect to the first prong, as in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. 4 Many proposed endeavors that aim to 
advance STEM technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, not only have 
substantial merit in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, but also have sufficiently broad 
potential implications to demonstrate national importance. 5 On the other hand, while proposed 
classroom teaching activities in STEM, for example, may have substantial merit in relation to U.S. 
educational interests, such activities, by themselves, generally are not indicative of an impact in the 
field of STEM education more broadly, and therefore generally would not establish their national 
importance. 6 
Moreover, the Petitioner contends that he presented an expert opinion letter from J-S-S- who found 
his proposed endeavor to have national importance. The letter, however, makes the same arguments, 
discussed above, relating to the importance of "comprehensive corporate training and development 
programs" rather than focusing on the national importance of the Petitioner's company. Further, the 
letter does not explain how the Petitioner's services and business have broader implications for our 
country. 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his proposed endeavor 
largely influences the field and rises 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 
3 The Petitioner's arguments and associated evidence relate more to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor 
rather than the national importance part. 
4 See generally 5 USCIS Policy Manual D.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
5 Id. 
6 Id. 
3 
would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Likewise, the record does not show through 
supporting documentation how his business stands to sufficiently extend beyond prospective clients, 
to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts "how [his] past experience and skills make [him] particularly well­
suited to provide a range of services in [his] future enterprise." However, the Petitioner's knowledge, 
skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific 
endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar' s first prong. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his business plan's claimed revenue and employment 
projections, even if credible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers 
substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Although the business plan forecasts cumulative 
revenue to almost $3M after five years, the Petitioner did not establish 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, although the business plan claims the creation of eight positions for 
the company, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that such future staffing levels would provide 
substantial economic benefits to the~----------- Florida region or U.S. economy 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner, for instance, did not 
show that such employment figures would utilize a significant population of workers in the area or 
would substantially impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. For all 
these reasons, the record does not establish 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. 
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. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. We also reserve 
a determination on the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification as an individual 
of exceptional ability. 7 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he 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. 
7 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