dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Wholesale And Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 16, 2024 In Re: 35423847 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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. § 1l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• 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. 
Id. 
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. 
Id. at 889. See id. at 888-91 for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded 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 of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer is warranted. 
The Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan to continue operating his "wholesale distributor and 
on line retailer offering a diverse array of imported Turkish beauty care products and candies," already 
operating at a location in Florida. The record contains a copy of a historically 
underutilized business zone (HUBZone) Qualification Report that indicates the physical address of 
the Petitioner's company is located in an area designated as a qualified HUBZone until July 2026. 
The record also contains a business plan that asserts the Petitioner's company's wholesale and retail 
operation "not only preserves and promotes Turkish culture within the U.S. but also fosters cultural 
exchange and understanding among a broader audience." The business plan indicates that its 
customers and clients include "[ d]irect-to-consumer sales ... facilitated throu h rominent online 
platforms" and wholesale distribution to 
operating Ias well as other key players like and I 
The business plan informs that the Petitioner would continue working as the beauty care products and 
candy distributor's president, as he has been doing "since [the company's] establishment in 2015." 
The business plan also indicates that the company would continue to employ existing employees with 
the following job titles: new product buyer, eCommerce specialist, and warehouse director. In 
addition to continuing to employ those four individuals, including the Petitioner, the business plan 
indicates that, in the next five years of operations, the company intends to hire eight additional workers 
for a total of 12, with the following job titles: three warehouse workers; two customer service 
representatives; and one sales and marketing manager, supply chain and logistics coordinator, and 
procurement specialist, respectively. The business plan further indicates that workers' initial annual 
wages would range between $25,000 and $54,000, with scheduled increases. 
2 
The Petitioner also submitted vanous documents containing generalized information regarding 
business, commerce, and similar topics. 
The Director determined that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as required in part by the 
first Dhanasar prong. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. The Director also 
acknowledged the business plan and other documentation in the record. However, the Director 
determined that the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor may have the type of broader 
implications indicative of national importance, such as certain improved manufacturing processes or 
medical advances. See id. The Director also observed that the record does not establish that the 
proposed endeavor may have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in a depressed area. See id. Based on those and similar issues, the 
Director concluded that the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor may have national 
importance, as required in part by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. The Director further determined 
that the record does not satisfy the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See id. at 888-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that his proposed endeavor has national importance because it "will 
broadly enhance cultural enrichment in the United States." The Petitioner also reasserts that his 
company's warehouse is located in an economically depressed area, and that, by operating a warehouse 
in that area, the proposed endeavor "will offer substantial economic benefits to an economically 
depressed area." More specifically, the Petitioner reasserts that he plans "to employ at least 12 workers 
in the first five years of operation," thereby employing more workers than 79% of small businesses, 
and "equat[ing] to a substantial positive economic benefit to an economically depressed area." 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential 
prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." Id. at 889. Dhanasar provided examples of 
endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first prong, having "national or even 
global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances" or those with "significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area." Id. at 889-90. 
We first note that the various documents containing generalized information regarding business, 
commerce, and similar topics do not address the Petitioner or the potential prospective impact of the 
specific endeavor he proposes to undertake. See id. Therefore, they do not establish how the proposed 
endeavor may have national importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong, and we need 
not address the further. See id. 
The record supports the conclusion that the proposed endeavor may benefit the Petitioner as the beauty 
care products and candy distributor's president, his company, its employees, and its customers and 
clients. However, the record does not establish how the Petitioner's company's continued business 
operations have national importance. For example, neither the business plan nor the remainder of the 
record establishes how the company's continued operations may have national or even global 
implications within the field of beauty care products retail and wholesale, candy retail and wholesale, 
3 
retail and wholesale in general, or any other particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. See id. 
Although the proposed endeavor aspires to employ more total workers than 79% of other small 
businesses within the next five years of operations, the record does not establish how the proposed 
endeavor's plan to continue employing four preexisting employees-including the Petitioner-and 
hiring three warehouse workers; two customer service representatives; and one sales and marketing 
manager, supply chain and logistics coordinator, and procurement specialist, respectively, with the 
wages noted above, demonstrates significant potential to employ U.S. workers, particularly in the 
context of existing workforce demographics, either within the particular locale or more generally in 
the United States. See id. That an endeavor may employ more workers than a typical small business 
does not categorically make such potential employment significant. 
We acknowledge that the physical address of the Petitioner's company is located in an area designated 
as a qualified HUBZone. However, whether a proposed endeavor is located in an economically 
depressed area is not a factor in isolation contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. Rather, the first 
Dhanasar prong considers whether a specific endeavor may have significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or have other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area. See id. If, as in this case, the record does not establish the proposed endeavor has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects, whether the endeavor 
is in an economically depressed area is incidental. 
We also acknowledge that the Petitioner's distribution of"imported Turkish beauty care products and 
candies" for profit may "enhance cultural enrichment in the United States" to some extent, as he asserts 
on appeal. However, as noted above, the proposed endeavor's benefits appear to be limited to the 
Petitioner, as the beauty care products and candy distributor's president, his company, its employees, 
and its customers and clients. Moreover, the Petitioner's business plan establishes that, like retail and 
wholesale in general, the proposed endeavor's main purpose is to sell certain goods at a price higher 
than the cost of creating or procuring them, to generate a profit, not to enhance cultural enrichment. 
Even to the extent that the proposed endeavor may enhance cultural enrichment, the record does not 
establish how the Petitioner's company's beauty care products and candy distribution activities may 
have national or even global cultural enrichment implications, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar 
prong. See id. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We 
reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5