dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Economics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 22, 2023 In Re: 28895683 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an economist, 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. § 1 l 53(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. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the national interest waiver. 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 nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates EB-2 eligibility, 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 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 
After earning a bachelor's degree in 2011, the Petitioner worked as a risk underwriter and market 
research analyst for an insurance company in Kenya from 2011 to 2014. In 2014, she entered the 
United States as an F-1 nonimmigrant student to study atl lwhich awarded her a 
doctorate in economics and finance in December 2021, three months before she filed the petition in 
March 2022. On her resume, she referred to herself as "an applied economist with knowledge in 
statistical analysis, macroeconomics and economic policy modeling." 
The Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining 
issue to be dete1mined 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. 
A. Proposed Endeavor 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner did not sufficiently describe her proposed 
endeavor at the time she filed her petition, and that information she later provided in response to a 
request for evidence (RFE) constituted material changes that cannot establish eligibility as of the 
petition's filing date. The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted a business plan in 
response to the RFE, but determined that the Petitioner had not shown that this plan was in place when 
the Petitioner first filed the petition. The Director cited regulations and case law indicating that the 
Petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit sought at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l); see also Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that her proposed endeavor has not changed, and that her response 
to the RFE clarified, rather than changed, that endeavor. The Petitioner contends that she has 
consistently indicated that her proposed endeavor involves application of her "exclusive and unique 
method developed to avoid financial crises and losses in the financial ecosystem." 
For the reasons explained below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not consistently 
described a single, detailed proposed endeavor. We also agree with the Director that the information 
provided does not establish eligibility within the Dhanasar national interest framework. 
On the petition form, the Petitioner stated that she is "interested in research and analysis for 
sustainability and thus economic development and growth in the areas of infrastructure efficiency, 
financial institutions and markets." Citing her interdisciplinary doctorate, the Petitioner stated: "The 
financial industry needs such expertise too as fulltime researchers [in] the public sector for policy 
development and in the private sector for ana[l]y[s]is and implementation of policy. This will help 
avert future crisis and minimize the economic impacts if they ever occur." 
In a separate statement, the Petitioner stated: "I am currently seeking jobs in the areas of economics, 
finance, infrastructure, economic growth, and economic development research with an interest in the 
2 
role of financial institutions and markets." The Petitioner provided no further details about her future 
plans beyond her intent to conduct research. 
On her accompanying resume, the Petitioner stated: "I aim to get a position where I can use my 
knowledge and build additional skills in Econometrics, Macroeconomics, Financial, and Development 
economics." The Petitioner also submitted info1mation about her doctoral disse1iation, in which she 
"buil[t] composite indices of economic development, infrastructure, and institution quality" in "25 
Sub-Saharan African countries" "to determine the impact of the interaction te1m of infrastructure and 
financial development on economic growth and development." 
In the RFE, the Director observed that the Petitioner "did not provide a detailed description of [her] 
specific proposed undertaking or venture." The Director explained that general statements about a 
particular field and inf01mation about the Petitioner's "past work" did not provide the necessary 
information for a determination regarding the prongs of the Dhanasar framework. The Director 
therefore requested "a detailed description of the proposed endeavor." 
In response, the Petitioner asserted that she has developed a "unique methodology" that "prepares the 
country, companies, and society to have ready-made solutions" to economic challenges. The 
Petitioner also stated that she developed a "model [that] focuses on economic growth and economic 
development and the role played by financial development and infrastructure investment." 
The Petitioner described her model in highly technical detail and stated that her "model can help in 
the sustainable development and growth of American cities." She stated that "the focus of [her] 
exclusive technique" is "to avoid and minimize economic losses for the country, in the area of 
economics of financial institutions, companies, and markets, providing forecasting solutions in 
appropriate research and policy recommendations for the sector." 
She also stated: "I am a financial analyst and economist," and submitted background information 
about both occupations. The Petitioner submitted a business plan for a limited liability company that 
would serve "as a financial and economic consulting advisor center" and eventually expand into a 
franchise. The business plan indicates that the Petitioner's company "aims to coordinate with federal 
organizations, key players in industry and commercial [sic] to advance its goal of promoting a robust, 
qualified, and diverse Economy / Financial Analysis workforce." 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner had provided general inf01mation about 
financial analysts, but did not establish that she had a specific proposed endeavor at the time she filed 
the petition. The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's business plan, but determined that this plan 
did not exist at the time the Petitioner filed the petition, and therefore cannot establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility at the time of filing as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1 ). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asse1is that she had submitted a detailed business plan in response to the 
RFE, and that the Director should have considered that evidence. 
The Director did not object to the business plan merely because the Petitioner submitted it in response 
to the RFE instead of with the initial filing. Rather, the Director determined that the business plan 
constituted a material change to the proposed endeavor, because the Petitioner's initial submission did 
3 
not include any claim that the Petitioner sought to start her own business and employ individuals in a 
wide range of professions and other occupations. 
The Petitioner states, on appeal, that she had already established that she "want[ s] not to be an 
employee." Regarding her earlier statement that she is "currently seeking jobs in the areas of 
economics, finance, infrastructure, economic growth, and economic development research," the 
Petitioner contends: "I am currently looking for and developing financial work in the job vacancies 
offered by employees who will be my potential clients once the permanent residency is confirmed .... 
IT'S PART OF MY CURRENT STRATEGY TO DEVELOP SEVERAL PARTNERSHIPS" 
( emphasis in original). 
But at the time of filing, the Petitioner did not indicate that she sought such positions in order to 
establish relationships with potential future clients. Rather, she initially stated: "My long-term goal 
is to employ my knowledge of research in the areas of economics of financial institutions and markets 
to ensure citizens' economic risk exposure is minimized or avoided at all costs. If policymakers have 
the proper research and policy recommendations, then the economy's stability is ensured." The initial 
emphasis on research included references to the Petitioner's dissertation, a manuscript that the 
Petitioner had submitted for publication, and reference letters that focused on her research skills. 
The Petitioner has not established that, at the time she filed the petition, her proposed endeavor 
included establishing her own company as described in the business plan and her accompanying 
statement submitted in response to the RFE. We conclude, therefore, that the information the 
Petitioner provided in response to the RFE amounts to a material revision and change of the proposed 
endeavor, rather than a clarification of a plan that was already in place when she filed the petition. A 
petitioner must meet eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in 
an effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). 
Furthermore, the business plan and RFE response statement do not present specific, consistent details 
about the nature of the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner at times referred to herself as an economist, 
a financial analyst, or both. The two occupations are related but not identical. 
The business plan does not consistently describe the company that the Petitioner seeks to establish. 
The plan calls the proposed business "an Economy / Financial Analysis business established and 
focused on the accountant's shortage ... committed to attract a new generation of American 
accountants." The business plan also refers to "demand for Economists/Financial Analysts 
professional teams," and states that one of the company's "Key Objectives" is "[t]o offer solutions by 
financial auditors." The business plan states that the company's "vision ... is to be the source of the 
highest quality human and technological resources to provide an improve [sic] to the commercial 
ecosystem. The company will save the economy millions by preventing the workforce from getting 
the required expertise from outside the country." 
The Petitioner provided statistics about financial analysts and other occupations, and stated her 
intention to establish a company that will employ a range of professionals, but the business plan does 
not articulate a consistent, specific explanation of the range of services the company would provide 
4 
and the Petitioner's role within the company. Also, the Petitioner has not explained how her plans to 
establish a financial analysis firm relates to her previously discussed intention to influence economic 
policy through research. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not presented a consistent description of her 
proposed endeavor. Therefore, the Petitioner has not met her burden of proof in this regard. 
Nevertheless, below we will consider the info1mation regarding the proposed endeavor in the context 
of the Dhanasar national interest framework. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to unde1iake. 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not established that she had a specific 
proposed endeavor at the time of filing, and therefore "we cannot meaningfully determine whether 
your proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework." The 
Director acknowledged the Petitioner's later submission of the business plan, but stated that the 
Petitioner had not shown that this plan existed on the petition's filing date. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she "produced nothing new" in response to the RFE, and 
contends that the Director cited precedent decisions that do not closely relate to her petition. While 
the overall fact patterns in Izummi and Katigbak do not resemble that of the petition on appeal, the 
general principle that a petitioner must be eligible when they file the petition is more widely applicable. 
This principle is also consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § I 03 .2(b )( 1 ), which requires each 
petitioner to establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner has not established that the business plan submitted in response to the RFE relates to 
the vague and general plans that she discussed when she first filed the petition. At the time of filing, 
the Petitioner stated that she was "seeking jobs" in economics or finance. She did not state any 
intention of establishing her own company, employing a professional staff, or addressing a claimed 
shortage of accountants. The Petitioner's initial statement emphasized her research and its potential 
implications for public policy, and the Petitioner has not explained how her operation of a financial 
analysis firm would influence policy in this way or otherwise result in implementation her economic 
models. 
In her initial statement, the Petitioner asserted that her proposed endeavor had national importance 
because her "research in the areas of Finance, Economics, infrastructure, and economic growth and 
development will provide policy suggestions on creating a strong environment for innovation and 
entrepreneurship necessary for a strong and viable economy." The Petitioner discussed the overall 
importance of a strong U.S. economy, but did not indicate the extent to which her proposed endeavor 
would affect the entire U.S. economy. 
5 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner discussed her research and stated: "I will introduce my solution 
for the protection of U.S. Finance and Economy .... The specific endeavor that I propose to undertake 
... involves the following procedures and techniques." The section that followed, however, did not 
describe any procedures or techniques. Rather, the Petitioner provided information and statistics about 
inflation. The Petitioner stated that "some companies have used inflation as a reason to raise prices 
and boost their profits," but she did not explain how her proposed endeavor would address this issue. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not provide enough info1mation about the proposed 
endeavor to establish its substantial merit and national importance. Upon review of the record, we 
conclude that, while the proposed endeavor lacks some necessary details, there is substantial merit 
both in economic research and in entrepreneurship in the financial field. But the lack of a consistent, 
specific proposed endeavor prevents a conclusion that the Petitioner has established national 
importance. 
Economic research can have national impmiance, in ways that the Petitioner has described, but the 
Petitioner has not provided enough information about her research plans to establish the national 
impmiance of her proposed endeavor as it relates to research. Discussion of her past work does not 
suffice in this regard, and neither does general information about the field. 
With respect to the business described in the Petitioner's second endeavor, the business plan describes 
a limited liability company that would serve "as a financial and economic consulting advisor center" 
and eventually expand into a franchise. The business plan indicates that the Petitioner's company 
"aims to coordinate with federal organizations, key players in industry and commercial [sic] to 
advance its goal of promoting a robust, qualified, and diverse Economy / Financial Analysis 
workforce." 
The business plan does not explain how the proposed company would have a significant impact 
beyond its employees and customers. A list of the company's "key objectives" mostly focuses on 
customer service and business operations. One item on the list indicates that the company seeks to 
"reduce racial animosity among different ethnic groups in the United States by hiring widely 
diversified professionals and offering them the same level of opportunities." While we recognize the 
great value in this stated objective, the business plan does not explain how the Petitioner's intended 
hiring policy would have broader implications beyond the company's own staffing, and thereby reach 
the national importance standard. 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not 
initially describe a specific proposed endeavor, and that the Petitioner's response to the RFE 
introduced material changes rather than clarify the Petitioner's initial discussion of the proposed 
endeavor. The Petitioner has not established the national importance of her planned business, and her 
research plans lack sufficient detail to meet her burden of proof regarding the national importance of 
that research. 
C. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second Dhanasar prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To 
determine whether an individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider 
6 
factors including, but not limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related 
or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The record provides partial information about two separate proposed endeavors, neither of which is 
sufficiently documented. 
The Petitioner did not provide the context in which she would be able to conduct her planned economic 
research. Her past research work has been in the context of her now-completed graduate studies. She 
did not indicate that she would seek employment at a university or research institution. The Petitioner 
did not establish that she has secured or even sought grant funding that would suppo1i future research 
activities. The Petitioner stated an intention to work with government and private entities, but she has 
not shown that those entities have expressed an interest in supporting or implementing her research. 
Apart from her master's thesis and doctoral dissertation, the only documented output from the 
Petitioner's research is a paper accepted for publication in January 2022, two months before she filed 
the petition. The Petitioner submitted letters from former professors and a classmate. The Director 
acknowledged these letters in the denial notice, but concluded that they do not suffice to establish that 
the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. We agree with the Director. The 
letters do not establish the reception or impact of her past research work beyond! I. 
While the Petitioner possesses the necessary educational background to conduct economic research 
and has described her past work in detail, she has not provided enough details about her intended 
future research and has not otherwise shown that she is well-positioned to advance a proposed 
endeavor in research. 
Turning to the business activity she first described in response to the RFE, the Petitioner did not 
explain how her research, models, and methods would relate to the operation of a company or franchise 
that employs financial analysts and accountants. The Petitioner did not explain how work with 
individual clients would "minimize ... the effects of the crisis, scarcity, shortages, negative country 
trade balance, and problems related to maintaining the United States' financial health." 
The Petitioner has not established that she is well-positioned to operate the business described in the 
business plan. The Petitioner asserts that she is qualified to work as a financial analyst, but she has 
not documented any past experience in that occupation. The Petitioner's response to the RFE included 
a letter from the administrator of an elder care provider service, stating that the Petitioner "has been 
working [for the company] as a market researcher since January 2022. She has helped with primary 
research and helped build successful marketing models" to increase the number of clients. 
The Director gave this letter no weight because it dates from February 2023, after the petition's filing 
date. The letter describes employment that began in January 2022, before the filing date, and therefore 
the letter warrants consideration. But the letter describes the Petitioner's work "as a market 
researcher," which is not the occupation described in the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner has not 
established that her work as a market researcher has positioned her well to start and operate her own 
financial analysis company. 
7 
In terms of a model or plan for future activities, the business plan lists various general goals, such as 
providing "the highest quality services," but it provides few details about the company's specific 
activities and the steps that the Petitioner has taken or will take to establish the business. 
The business plan included no specific details about staffing. The only job titles listed in the plan's 
financial projections are "Instructor," "Secretary," "Manager," and, after the first year, "General 
Staff," with total annual salary and staff expenses reaching $824,725 in the third year. 
In her separate statement, the Petitioner did not specify the number of anticipated employees, but she 
stated that her company would be "hiring Economists, Analysts, researchers, technicians, accountants, 
lawyers, administrators, IT professionals, marketing, and other staff," who would work in ten divisions 
and subdivisions labeled "Law," "Administration," "Marketing," "Financial/Economy," "Patrimony," 
"Training," "Operational," "Laboratory," "Information Technology and Computing," and "Supply." 
The Petitioner's business plan articulated few details about the timeline for the company's growth. It 
is not apparent that the third year salary projection of about $825,000 is adequate to cover the 
anticipated salaries for all the occupations listed in the Petitioner's statement. 
The business plan also states: 
Our team is constituted of professionals whose professional career expands over three 
decades. Throughout their exceptional careers they have been in command of strategic 
positions and playing key roles in execution of projects and operations of national and 
regional interest. Our team has extensive experience in, Economy I Financial Analysis 
service, consulting, and managements. 
The phrasing quoted above suggests that the Petitioner has already assembled a "team" of several 
experienced "professionals," but the record includes no other infomiation or evidence about members 
of the claimed team other than the Petitioner herself. The record does not show that the proposed 
company already exists or has any employees. The Petitioner stated that the company would initially 
be based in Georgia, but the Petitioner has resided in Wisconsin throughout this proceeding. 
Without further details, the limited information about projected services and staffing do not allow us 
to determine if she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner has likewise not documented any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor as 
it relates to the business plan. The business plan presumes first-year assets of over $175,000, but the 
record does not say where these funds will come from. Likewise, the Petitioner has not documented 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Instead, 
the business plan contains general statements about shortages, demand, and future marketing plans. 
The Petitioner observes, on appeal, that she holds a doctorate in a field relating to science, technology, 
engineering or mathematics (STEM). The Petitioner states: "USCIS has clarified, in Volume 6 of its 
Policy Manual, how the national interest waiver ... can be used for individuals ... with advanced 
degrees in STEM fields and entrepreneurs. It is a [sic] 'especially positive factor' in the adjudication." 
The original context of the quoted phrase is in this sentence: 
8 
USCIS considers an advanced degree, particularly a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), in 
a STEM field tied to the proposed endeavor and related to work furthering a critical 
and emerging technology or other STEM area important to U.S. competitiveness or 
national security, an especially positive factor to be considered along with other 
evidence for purposes of the assessment under the second prong. 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. The Petitioner has also 
shown that economics qualifies as a STEM field for immigration purposes. But the Policy Manual 
does not indicate that an advanced degree in a STEM field is always sufficient to establish eligibility; 
the degree must "be considered along with other evidence." In this instance, the Petitioner has not 
overcome the Director's finding that the petition, as originally filed, did not adequately describe a 
specific proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's response to the RFE, while it reiterated some prior 
assertions about research, also introduced new plans to start a business that does not appear to have a 
significant connection to that research. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that she is well positioned to 
advance a proposed endeavor either in research or in the operation of a new business. 
The above conclusions determine the outcome of the appeal. Detailed discussion of the third 
remaining Dhanasar prong cannot change that outcome. Therefore, we reserve argument on the third 
prong, which relates to whether, on balance, the United States would benefit from waiving the job 
offer requirement. 2 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently described two separate proposed endeavors. She has therefore not 
met her 
burden of proof to establish the national importance of either proposed endeavor, and has not 
shown that she is well positioned to advance either of the proposed endeavors. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as 
a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 ( 1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter olL-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). 
9