dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Economic Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 26, 2024 In Re: 33360257 
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 the Petitioner was eligible for EB-2 immigrant classification as an advanced degree 
professional, and was therefore ineligible for the requested national interest waiver. 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 l&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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement 
for entry into the occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
1 Profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 10l(a)(32) 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 of Dhanasar, 26 T&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, 2 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
On appeal the Petitioner continues to assert his eligibility for both the underlying EB-2 immigrant 
classification and the requested national interest waiver. While we agree that the record establishes 
his eligibility for EB-2 immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional, upon de novo 
review we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the requested national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was not an advanced degree professional because, while 
the Petitioner provided evidence of his foreign degree, the record did not contain evidence establishing 
the Petitioner's dates of attendance or transcripts, and the Petitioner's degree was not in the field of 
the proposed endeavor. Upon de novo review, we disagree and withdraw the Director's determination. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that he earned a professional title of attorney (titulo de abogado) 
degree from along with an academic evaluation confirming his 
degree is equivalent to a U.S. juris doctor. Additionally, the record also contains copies of the 
Petitioner's transcripts from verifying his attendance and 
completion of the degree in 1997. The Petitioner also provide his U.S. master's degree in 
administrative science, along with accompanying transcripts confirming his completion of this degree 
in 2006. 
The Petitioner is a lawyer and therefore qualifies as a member of the professions as the term is defined 
at section 10l(a)(32) of the Act and at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Additionally, on appeal the Petitioner 
establishes that his educational background is related to his endeavor to foster economic development 
by consulting with noncitizens to invest in the United States rather than sending remittances to their 
home country. Accordingly, the Petitioner has established he qualifies for the requested EB-2 
2 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). 
2 
immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional. The Director's conclusion that the 
Petitioner is not eligible for the requested EB-2 immigrant classification is therefore withdrawn. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
While the Petitioner is eligible for the EB-2 immigrant classification, upon de novo review of the 
record, we nonetheless conclude that the record does not establish the Petitioner is eligible for the 
requested national interest waiver. 
The first Dhanasar 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
The record reflects the Petitioner intends to "foster economic growth and improve the labor market in 
the United States through mitigation of migrant remittances." Specifically, the Petitioner asserted that, 
by encouraging a reduction in remittances 3, noncitizens could instead invest their earnings and 
"preserve financial gains for investments inside the United States." While he acknowledged that 
noncitizens primarily send remittances for basic day-to-day necessities, the Petitioner indicated that 
"it is of great importance to the United States that the portion of remittances which is not dedicated to 
supply necessities focus on investment projects or other activities that generate a benefit for the 
American economy and not just for the destination countries." As such, the Petitioner plans to develop 
financial and investment knowledge in noncitizens by coordinating the development of training, 
conferences, consultancies and dissemination of infographics, and recommendation of investment 
projects. In particular, the Petitioner intends to offer his consulting services either directly or through 
third-party experts "to immigrants who want advice on how to invest their income in the U[ nited] 
S[tates] while still sending a part of [their income] to relatives in other countries." According to his 
professional plan, the Petitioner intends to operate his endeavor in the I I Florida area and 
indicated that he would hire up to 12 individuals by the fifth year of operations. 
In support of his endeavor, the Petitioner initially provided three personal statements as well as 
numerous research reports and articles on remittances, investments, and financial literacy in the United 
States. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) notifying the Petitioner that the record 
did not establish his eligibility for the requested national interest wavier under the Dhanasar 's three­
prong analytical framework, the Petitioner supplemented the record with additional reports on 
financial literacy in the United States as well as census information onl IFlorida. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he provided "ample evidence" to demonstrate the national 
importance of his endeavor, and generally claims that the Director disregarded the evidence submitted 
in his initial filing. Specifically, the Petitioner relies onBuletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 
1994) to support his assertion that the Director erred in failing to consider all the evidence in its totality. 
But the court in Buletini did not reject the concept of examining the quality of the evidence presented 
3 For the purposes of his endeavor, the Petitioner defined remittances specifically as "money or goods that [ noncitizens] 
send back to families and friends in their country of origin." 
3 
to determine whether it establishes a petitioner's eligibility, nor does the Buletini decision suggest that 
USCIS abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. 
Moreover, the evidence the Petitioner claims the Director ignored are articles and reports on the 
importance of investment and financial literacy, particularly among the Latino community, yet the 
Petitioner does not explain how these articles establish the national importance of his spec[fic 
endeavor. 
Turning to our review of the record, we conclude that, while the articles and reports in the record 
establish the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor, the record does not establish its national 
importance. In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is 
not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we 
focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. 
We therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting that "[a]n undertaking 
may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within 
a particular field." Id. We also stated 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. 
Here, although the Petitioner's statements in the record reflect his intention to improve his potential 
clients' financial literacy while mitigating remittances and increasing investments in the United States, 
he did not demonstrate how any assistance he would provide to his potential clients would rise to the 
level of national importance contemplated in Dhanasar. For example, the Petitioner relies on the 
evidence in the record from government sources establishing governmental interest in furthering 
individual's financial literacy, but the record does not establish that his endeavor, however admirable, 
will result in broader implications to these initiatives. Here, while the Petitioner's services may benefit 
his prospective clients, in the same way teaching activities proposed by the petitioner in Dhanasar 
were not shown to have a broader impact on the field of STEM education, activities which may only 
benefit the Petitioner's clients would not have broader implications in the field. Id. at 893. 
The Petitioner also claims on appeal that he provided ample evidence establishing the economic 
impact of remittances in the United States, and why it would be economically beneficial to mitigate 
remittances. Yet this evidence relies on the cumulative economic benefits of mitigating remittances, 
rather than "substantial positive economic effects" directly resulting from his specific endeavor. And, 
while the Petitioner's statements indicate he intends to employ approximately 12 employees by his 
fifth year of operation, he has not provided information relating to the nature of the employment, 
including the prospective duties of these positions, whether these employees will be full-time or part­
time, or the salaries of these positions. The Petitioner has also not provided projected revenue 
contributable to his endeavor, or explained how it will impact the area of intended operations. Without 
this information, we cannot conclude that his endeavor has a significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or otherwise result in substantial economic effects as contemplated in Dhanasar. 
See Dhanasar at 889. 
In addition, while we recognize that the Petitioner has had a successful career with experience working 
with immigrant populations, as well as facilitating investments, a petitioner's expertise and record of 
success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated 
4 
the national importance of his proposed endeavor. And we conclude that the evidence does not 
establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the 
Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. Because the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that 
"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 T&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5