NIW Documents – Business Plan (1)

This decision by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), dated August 22, 2024, highlights the critical importance of consistency and clarity in National Interest Waiver (NIW) petitions. In this case, the primary issue was the petitioner’s lack of consistency in the proposed endeavor, which ultimately became a decisive factor in the denial.

Summary of the AAO Decision

The petitioner initially claimed that their proposed endeavor was to develop advanced sensor technology and data-driven guidelines for monitoring heavy metals. The goal was to track heavy metal levels in water and commercial products, thereby reducing human and economic damage caused by heavy metal poisoning across various industries such as food and agriculture. In response to this proposal, USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE).

However, in responding to the RFE, the petitioner shifted the focus of the proposed endeavor to the development of micro electrochemical biosensors for detecting neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. The AAO determined that this shift constituted a material change. According to existing precedent (Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169), a petitioner may not fundamentally change the proposed endeavor after the initial petition has been filed. Based on this, the AAO concluded that the petitioner must establish eligibility based on the original petition.

Because the petitioner had materially altered the core content of the proposed endeavor, the AAO determined that they failed to meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, which assesses whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. The Dhanasar framework includes three prongs: (1) the national importance of the endeavor, (2) the petitioner’s qualifications to advance it, and (3) whether, on balance, it benefits the U.S. to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements. As the first prong was not satisfied, the AAO did not proceed to analyze the second and third prongs.

Reflections on the AAO Decision

This decision clearly illustrates how essential consistency is in NIW petitions. Petitioners must clearly define their research or business plans and maintain that focus throughout the adjudication process. Both USCIS and the AAO require specificity and consistency to evaluate the potential national impact of the proposed endeavor.

In this case, the petitioner initially proposed a project focused on heavy metal monitoring, but later shifted to developing biosensors for neurological disease detection. This shift blurred the original purpose of the petition and failed to satisfy USCIS’s evaluation standards. Petitioners must remember that eligibility must be demonstrated based on the plan presented at the time of filing.

Moreover, under the Dhanasar framework, the petitioner must show that the proposed endeavor holds national importance, not merely significance within a particular industry or profession. In this case, the petitioner’s presentation of two unrelated endeavors introduced ambiguity, making it difficult for USCIS to assess the national importance of the proposed work.

Strategic Implications for NIW Petitions

This case underscores the necessity of having a clear and consistent strategy for NIW success. Petitioners should present a coherent plan from the outset and provide sufficient evidence to enable USCIS to assess the national importance of the endeavor.

In conclusion, the AAO’s decision serves as a reminder that a petitioner must articulate their proposed endeavor with clarity and consistency. Doing so allows USCIS to accurately evaluate the positive impact of the endeavor on the United States—and such consistency is often a decisive factor in the success of an NIW petition.