dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Travel And Tourism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 06, 2024 In Re: 34511959 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chief executive/entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See 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 although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, he 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. 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, 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. 
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 noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that on 
1 See 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). 
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, 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 as a chief executive/entrepreneur in the United States. The Director 
found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver ofthe requirement 
of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed 
below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. The Director 
determined, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor's national 
importance, that he is well positioned to advance it, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United 
States to waive the job offer requirement. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director 
erroneously denied the petition. The Petitioner further contends that the Director failed to apply the 
proper standard of proof and instead imposed a novel standard. 
While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed the record and have 
considered the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest waiver. The Petitioner states that he aims 
to work as a chief executive and entrepreneur through his company, __________ The 
Petitioner's company is based in I I Florida and will focus on negotiating accommodations, 
2 
transfers, excursions, and offering prepackaged travel deals to clients through retail and online channels. 
The Petitioner further explains that his company will provide travel destinations across the U.S., 
organized activities, excursions to various attractions, and cruise trips. The record includes a business 
plan, expert opinion letter, recommendation letters, and industry reports and articles on various topics, 
such as business, marketing, and entrepreneurship. 
The Petitioner highlights his extensive experience in travel and business management and contends 
that he will help the U.S. remain competitive by offering high-quality services, contributing to the 
country's development, and generating income for the U.S. In determining whether the proposed 
endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. The relevant question is 
not the importance of the field, 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. 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 
importance." Id. at 890. Here, although the Petitioner asserts that his expertise and skill set will "support 
U.S. businesses in developing a competitive edge in both national and international markets," the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor will bring substantial economic benefit that 
would rise to the level of national importance. 
Moreover, the first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself: not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner 
must establish that his specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
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 professional experience is 
generally 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, through his business plan, claims that by year five, his company will offer 6 direct jobs 
and generate net profit of$72,466. The Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient detail of the basis 
ofthese 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 
ofChawathe, 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 emphasizes his contributions to the tourism industry, his national and international 
recognitions, and the importance of the tourism sector. As previously mentioned, 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. Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his undertaking has 
implications beyond the companies and clients he elects to work with to impact the U.S. economy on a 
broad scale rising to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's 
3 
teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact 
his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Similarly, the record here does not establish that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor's impact will be nationally important. 
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 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 ofL-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 requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established 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. 
4