remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 18, 2023 In Re: 28467745 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner states that she is an "entrepreneur in the field of business management." She 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 EB-2 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 the record did not 
establish 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we conclude that the Director did not offer a complete and accurate analysis of the submitted evidence . 
We will therefore withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision 
consistent with the analysis below. 
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." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (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 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). 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As previously indicated, the Director's decision did not offer a complete analysis or adequately explain 
the deficiencies in the evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 l&N Dec. 
786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must folly explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow 
the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that she meets any of the three-prong criteria 
set forth in Dhanasar. 2 Specifically, the Director determined that despite expressing her intent to work 
as an entrepreneur in the business management field, the Petitioner did not adequately describe her 
proposed endeavor or explain with specificity what she intends to do in the business management 
field. The Director therefore concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that her endeavor has 
substantial merit or national importance as required under the first prong in Dhanasar. Although the 
record appears to support the Director's conclusion, it does not support the underlying analysis and 
reasoning that served as the basis for that conclusion. 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the record contains various statements authored by the 
Petitioner's counsel, such as counsel's initial cover letter and the letter submitted in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), and we agree that these statements prepared by counsel are 
vague and lack specifics about the Petitioner's endeavor. See, e.g., Matter ofS-M-, 22 l&N Dec. 49, 
51 (BIA 1998) ("statements in a brief: motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not 
entitled to any evidentiary weight"). However, counsel's assertions notwithstanding, the record also 
contains several statements from the Petitioner along with a corresponding business plan, all of which 
~ately convey that the Petitioner's pdoposr endeavor is to own and operate! I 
L__J a company the Petitioner formed i 2021, approximately three months prior to filing this 
petition. 
First, in support of the petition, the Petitioner provided a signed affidavit in which she stated that she 
intends to assume the role of "sole Partner/Owner of~-----~' and that one of her "main 
responsibilities" in pursuing that endeavor is to sell specialized footwear to individuals with 
disabilities. Then, in a "Professional Plan & Statement," which was submitted in response to the RFE, 
the Petitioner again referred to I Ias the focus of her proposed endeavor and she 
remained consistent in maintaining the claim that the endeavor would seek to provide "inclusive 
fashion" by selling "quality footwear" that would be customized to suit the needs of both "the 
2 We note that the Director's denial focused entirely on the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver to the 
exclusion of the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification. Therefore, despite the Petitioner's assertion that "the 
Service agrees that the Appellant qualifies for the requested classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree," the Director's decision does not render a determination on the issue of the Petitioner's EB-2 
qualification. 
2 
American disabled population" and the general consumer population. These statements about the 
Petitioner's endeavor are reiterated in a business plan, which was initially submitted in support of the 
petition and was subsequently resubmitted in response to the RFE. The plan states that the Petitioner's 
shoe company is the focus of her endeavor and stresses the Petitioner's intent to offer "a wide variety 
of quality footwear products, especially for the American population with disabilities." 
In light of the above, we conclude that the record contains sufficient documentation establishing that 
the Petitioner adequately described her endeavor; the Director's determination to the contrary was 
therefore incorrect. Further, because the Director incorrectly determined that the Petitioner provided 
a vague and deficient description of her endeavor and because that incorrect determination impacted 
the Director's analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver, we will withdraw 
the Director's decision. 
Notwithstanding the deficiencies in the Director's decision and our withdrawal thereof: the evidence 
of record does not appear to demonstrate that the Petitioner met the requirements of the analytical 
framework set forth in Dhanasar, which requires the Petitioner to demonstrate that: (1) her endeavor 
has substantial merit and national importance, (2) she is well-positioned to advance the endeavor, and 
(3) on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Because the Director's decision does not properly apply the Dhanasar framework to the facts in the 
record, we will remand the matter for entry of a new decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3