PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
DismissedNational Interest Waiver · Appeal

Entrepreneur

Business & finance · decided 2023-07-10 · TSC · JUL102023_01B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 1Merit and national importanceNot met
    Why
    Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion.2 Further analysis of her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 3 ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 1 As correctly indicated by the Director, the Petitioner's submission ofindustry articles and reports relates to the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor rat p. 2
  • Prong 2Well positioned to advance itNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 3Worth waiving the job offerNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

Summary sentence

The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, determining the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the three-prong analytical framework. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. See in text
  • Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion.2 Further analysis of her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 3 ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. See in text
Read the full decision (2 pages)

Objections found (1)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

Full decision

OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

Highlighted: Outcome (2) Tagged objection (1)Matter of X citation
Decision header
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office · Date: WL. 10, 2023 · In Re: 27441950 · Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision · Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver)

The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, 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, determining the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the three-prong analytical framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889-90 (AAO 2016). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.

The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof 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.

The Petitioner intends to "develop, produce, and sell environmentally friendly cleaning and personal hygiene products in an innovative and sustainable way" through her company.I I I Ilocated inl IFlorida. On appeal, as it specifically relates to the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Petitioner emphasizes her "more than nineteen (19) years of progressive experience," "expertise and extensive experience," "professional record," "unique expertise and skills," "business achievements," and "agribusiness background."

We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted this issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Court of Appeals in holding the appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). The Director thoroughly reviewed and analyzed the Petitioner's national importance claims under the first prong ofDhanasar, including her business plan. Specifically, the Director discussed the business plan's assertions of hiring and capital projections, including revised claims in an updated business plan in response to the Director's request for evidence. p. 2 On appeal, the Petitioner does not address any ofthe Director's specific findings, such as the reliability and credibility of the plan's figures. Instead, the Petitioner repeats that she will "share her unique expertise and skills by developing her environmentally friendly products company in the State of Florida."

As it relates to the Petitioner's experience and ability claims, those relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. Moreover, the Petitioner must establish the national importance ofher business rather than the importance of small businesses, entrepreneurism, and environmentally friendly practices. 1 The relevant question is not the importance ofthe industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Further, "we look for broader implications" ofthe 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. Also, "[a]n endeavor that has particularly 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.

Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established her proposed endeavor sufficiently extends beyond the company and its clientele to impact the industry or the field more broadly, at a level commensurate with 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. Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Id. at 890.

Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion.2 Further analysis of her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 3 ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.