dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business And Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 31, 2023 In Re: 28111963 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business and financial consultant, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2)(B)(i) . U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner shows: 
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 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the 
Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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 Petitioner intends to work in the United States as a business and financial consultant. In a personal 
statement submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner described his proposed endeavor as 
follows: 
Regarding my future professional plans in the United States, through my company
I I I will concentrate on providing financial and business consulting to 
local and international individuals desiring to open companies or invest in companies 
within [U.S.] soil. I will provide a personalized service in which investors will receive 
the professional guidance in order to comply with U.S. federal and state government 
agencies and its relative tax laws, allowing them to successfully invest money which 
will generate job opportunities and consequently revenue potential for State agencies 
and Federal agencies once these companies enter the path of earning income in the U.S. 
Furthermore, my company will highlight the business opportunities within the U.S. for 
international investors and attract convenient international trades and partnerships that 
will only boost the U.S. economy especially at a time where we are in critical need of 
financial help after our economy has been negatively impacted by COVID-19. I 
continue to believe that even during and post this pandemic, the U.S. still has the most 
opportunities in the world for small businesses and outside investors who all want to 
come and invest and live in the U.S. The U.S. is a worldwide leader in economics and 
I believe I can use my expertise in finance, tax, and business to help companies 
maneuver through this financial market and find the best solutions to stimulate and 
grow this economy. 
My experience and my background in business, financial accounting and tax consulting 
renders me an ideal consultant to enhance international investment, national investment 
by helping small businesses and consequently job creation and economy stimulation. 
According to selectusa.gov "Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) plays an essential role in 
ensuring U.S. economic growth and prosperity, creating highly compensated jobs, 
spurring innovation, and driving exports." My main targets are to attract investors from 
2 
Latin America and assist US small businesses who are just starting out in need 
strategies and advice on how to navigate tax implications and financial decisions of the 
business. 
I will also aim to revive trade with Latin America's emerging markets and start durable 
trade partnership with this geographically well positioned region that is South Florida. 
I believe this will help improve economic relations and in consequence implement a 
plan to reborn [sic] from this coronavirus recession that we are experiencing. I believe 
with my help, we can help [this] hurting economy rise once again after this horrible 
pandemic. My work can help generate business for hundreds of companies, which will 
stimulate the economy by creating jobs and revenue, boosting the U.S. economy 
overall. 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of industry articles and reports as well as letters of 
recommendation in support of his eligibility. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's initial filing did not identify his proposed endeavor with 
sufficient detail, and issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) demonstrating the proposed 
endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. Specifically, the Director acknowledged the 
Petitioner's submission of a 2018 IBISWorld Report which discussed the importance of financial 
management and the impact of finance on business growth, but noted that this report did not relate 
specifically to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted an updated personal statement, where he again emphasized that 
he would "consult businesses looking to enter the U.S. market or that are already in the U.S. and seek 
to develop and grow successfully" through his company,! IHe farther stated that he 
intended to "assist U.S. small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) that need guidance and strategic 
advice on navigating this challenging market, especially regarding tax implications and financial 
decisions." The Petitioner also submitted his company's business plan, opinion letters, a client letter, 
and additional industry articles and reports. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that although the proposed endeavor had substantial 
merit, the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner's work would 
impact the regional or national population at a level consistent with national importance. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the benefits of his proposed U.S. employment 
would reach beyond his clients to affect his field or the United States more broadly, and farther noted 
that the record was insufficient to establish that his work "will serve as an impetus for progress in the 
business sector." 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director's decision was erroneous, noting that his endeavor 
"has the potential to create a ripple effect in the industry and beyond." The Petitioner farther contends 
that the Director erred by applying a "stricter standard of proof'' when evaluating the national 
importance element of Dhanasar's first prong and not analyzing the "totality of the evidence," 
including his personal statement, business plan, probative research, and expert opinions. 
3 
With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that he meets each 
eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I& N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what he claims is "more likely 
than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met his burden under the 
preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, 
probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 
(Comm'r 1989). Here, the Director thoroughly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed 
his evidence to evaluate whether he had demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he 
meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Generally, we look 
to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of a petitioner's work. The Petitioner 
submitted articles and reports addressing importance of financial planning and business consulting 
and its impact on the U.S. economy. We recognize the value of the financial planning and business 
consulting; however, merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. 
Similarly, the Petitioner's personal statement emphasizes the value of financial management and 
consulting and the impact of finance on business growth instead of focusing on the prospective impact 
of his specific endeavor. The Petitioner discusses the benefits of financial planning and consulting at 
length, highlighting how his endeavor will help improve economic relations, generate business for 
hundreds of companies, and stimulate the economy by creating jobs and revenue. However, the 
Petitioner does not point to any corroborating evidence that would directly link his specific endeavor 
to the overall economy's growth. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, 
and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts that the expert opinion letters from an associate professor at ~I-~ 
University and a professor of practice atl !University provide independent and objective 
evidence demonstrating the national importance of his endeavor. The bulk of the opinion letters 
discuss the importance of financial planning and consulting services and the impact of finance on 
business growth, and generally make the same assertions set forth by the Petitioner in his personal 
statement. The letters also point to the Petitioner's intent to assist Hispanic companies and note that 
a key goal of the Petitioner's company is to "attract investors from Latin America and provide them 
with strategic tools to enter and succeed in the U.S. market and assist U.S. small and medium-sized 
enterprises (SMEs) that need guidance and strategic advice .... " However, the letters do not explain 
how the Petitioner's financial and business consulting services have broader implications for our 
country. Although the writers recite the Petitioner's career history and experience and opine that he 
is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, they do not articulate how the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor of providing financial and business consulting services to individual 
companies will have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive economic 
effects in an economically depressed area. The letters, therefore, do not establish the national 
importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed U.S. work. See Matter o_f Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N 
Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (holding that the immigration service may reject or afford less 
4 
evidentiary weight to an expert opinion that conflicts with other information or "is m any way 
questionable"). 
The Petitioner also provided recommendation letters from clients and colleagues who attested to the 
quality of his work and the potential impact of his proposed endeavor. Although the letters praise him 
for his work, the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor he proposes to 
undertake has national importance under Dhanasar' s first prong. In addition, the letters discuss the 
impact of the Petitioner's work to their own experiences rather than the required broad impact to the 
business and finance sector. See id. at 889. 
In addition, we noted in Dhanasar that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor 
and 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. The Petitioner's business plan attempts to show 
his endeavor's potential positive economic effects by recounting the value and importance of financial 
and business consulting and its impact on business growth. For example, the plan stipulates that 
approximately "24% of small businesses in the United States planned to hire a financial consultant or 
advisor in 2021," thereby indicating the necessity of the Petitioner's consulting services. It further 
discusses the potential growth of the management consulting industry, noting that it "is poised to 
benefit from overall economic growth" over the next five years. However, Dhanasar requires us to 
focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," not the importance 
of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work. Id. at 889. 
Further, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his business plan's claimed revenue and employment 
projections have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. While the sales forecast projects total sales of $367,000 in year one 
and $793,200 by year five, the business plan does not establish the benefits to the regional or national 
economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Id. at 890. Similarly, although the plan claims the business would create seven jobs by its fifth year 
of operations, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that such future staffing levels would provide 
substantial economic benefits to Florida or the region or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner, for instance, did not show that such 
employment figures would utilize a significant population of workers in the area or would substantially 
impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. 
Moreover, the job creation and revenue projections included in the Petitioner's business plan are not 
supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how those projections will be realized. 
Even if the Petitioner had established a sufficient basis for those projections, they would not establish 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor. While the projections in the business plan indicate 
that the Petitioner's company has growth potential, the plan does not demonstrate that the benefits to 
the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. 
5 
In addition, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where his company will 
operate is economically depressed; that his company would employ a significant population ofworkers 
in those areas; or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic 
benefit through employment levels, business activity, or tax revenue. Without this evidence, we 
cannot evaluate the proposed endeavor's impact on job creation or its overall economic impact. As 
such, the Petitioner has not supported a claim that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond his customers to impact the financial and business consulting field at a level commensurate 
with national importance. 
Finally, we note the Petitioner's submission of two of our non-precedent decisions on appeal, in which 
each petitioner submitted a Form 1-140 petition seeking classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability and we sustained the appeals. First, as noted, these two petitioners sought employment-based 
first preference (EB-1) immigrant classification, which is different from the EB-2 immigrant 
classification sought by the Petitioner in the instant case. Second, neither decision was published as a 
precedent and, therefore, these decisions do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 
C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the 
individual case and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the 
issues considered, and applicable law and policy. 
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) ("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 demonstrated eligibility 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. 
6