dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 28, 2023 In Re: 28455846 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial manager and entrepreneur, 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 NationalityAct(theAct)section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 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. The Director concluded that although 
the Petitioner established eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, the record did not demonstrate his eligibility for the requested 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. An 
advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree.1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for ad iscretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
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 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
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 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to establish a financial management and information technology consulting 
business in the United States having previously worked as a business analyst, test specialist, and 
project manager for the banking and finance industries in Turkey. He holds an undergraduate diploma 
in business administration froml !University in Turkey and a master of arts degree in banking 
and finance fromD University in Turkey. The Director determined that the Petitioner established 
his eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 3 
However, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a 
job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Director found that 
while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, he did not establish 
that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. The 
Director further found that the Petitioner did not establish that he is well positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor, and that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the 
requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification. Upon de nova review, we agree with the 
Director's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a waiver of the labor certification 
would be in the national interest.4 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. 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." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 889. 
The Petitioner proposes to establish a financial management and information technology consulting 
business for which he would be its chief executive officer. The business plan states that the Petitioner's 
business would provide a specific market niche by providing business process mapping and 
assessment, business KPI definition and implementation, financial process outsourcing, software 
2 See also Poursina v. USClS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019)(finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 To demonstrate he is an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner submitted his diplomas, his academic transcripts, 
and an academic evaluation. The record demonstrates that he holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree in 
banking and finance. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
4 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
testing outsourcing, and financial process redesign targeting the consulting sector. The business would 
have its main office in the Houston area of Texas to help "fuel small business growth in historically 
underutilized business zones .... " (emphasis in original). We agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit. 
Even though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Director found that the 
Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor "will have a broader impact on the Financial 
Management field, outside of his prospective local community," and therefore, "the [P]etitioner has 
not met his burden in meeting the 'national importance' element of the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework." 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof, instead 
imposing a stricter standard, and erred by not giving "due regard" to the evidence submitted, 
specifically the Petitioner's resume, his business plan, his definitive statement, and industry reports 
and articles. Upan de nova review, we find the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed 
endeavor satisfies the national importance element of Dhanasar's first prong, as discussed below. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the 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.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence to evaluate 
the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his proposed endeavor has national importance, particularly 
because it will "generate substantial ripple effects upon key business activities on behalf of the United 
States" and would be "a vital aspect of U.S. financial operations and productivity, [sic] which 
contributes to a revenue-enhanced business ecosystem, and an enriched, productivity-centered 
economy." (emphasis in original). The Petitioner stresses his more than 29 years "of progressive 
experience and acumen in the finance field" and his educational credentials to argue that his "work 
offers broad implications to the United States' finance industry, specifically through his endeavors 
within key commercial segments." (emphasis in original). The Petitioner argues his proposed 
endeavor will benefit the United States "by creating jobs and economic stability." He relies on his 
background to emphasize that he "has brought numerous advantages to the organizations that he has 
served ... " by stimulating "his served companies' economic capacities" and prioritizing "customer 
satisfaction by ensuring all projects are aligned with customer's actual needs, furthering customer 
loyalty." The Petitioner argues the United States "would benefit from investing in well-versed 
financial professionals such as [the Petitioner], who are knowledgeable regarding potentially 
profitable markets for U.S. companies in regions that are economically and politically strategic, yet 
extremely complex." (emphasis in original). He contends his "proposed endeavor will have multiple 
positive effects on the U.S. marketplace, thus enhancing business operations on behalf of the nation, 
and contributing to a streamlined economic landscape." The Petitioner asserts his "proposed endeavor 
is clearly of national importance, when considering how much a professional with his caliber can 
contribute to the national interests, and to the U.S. economy, regardless of a labor certification." 
(emphasis in original). 
3 
However, the Petitioner's reliance on his academic credentials, professional experience, and 
achievements to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor is misplaced. His 
academic credentials, professional experience, and achievements relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the 
Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. To evaluate 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to 
evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. See id. at 889. 
In Dhanasar, we determined that 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. The record 
does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will substantially benefit the fields of 
financial management and information technology, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a]n undertaking 
may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within 
a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical 
advances." Id. The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's consulting business would impact 
the financial management and information technology fields more broadly. 
With the petition, the Petitioner submitted his statement and a business plan contending his proposed 
endeavor has national importance based on potential economic and societal benefits. The Petitioner 
claims that his proposed endeavor would generate jobs for U.S. workers in underserved areas, improve 
wages and working conditions for U.S. citizens, increase investment and economic development in 
local communities, and increase national and international integration and productivity. However, the 
Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support his claim that his business' activities 
stand to provide substantial economic and societal benefits to the United States. The Petitioner's 
claims that his financial management and information technology consulting business will benefit the 
U.S. economy and enhance societal welfare has not been established through independent and 
objective evidence. The Petitioner's statements are not sufficient to demonstrate his endeavor has the 
potential to provide economic and societal benefits to the United States. The Petitioner must support 
his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 
at 376. Also, without sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed job duties as the chief 
executive officer for his business would impact the financial management and information technology 
industries more broadly, rather than benefiting his consulting business and his proposed clients, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed endeavor is of 
national importance. 
The Petitioner submitted a business plan, which explains his intended ownership and financial 
investment in the business; establishment of its office in an underutilized business area I 
Texas; the business' products and services and an analysis of the demand for financial management 
and information technology consulting products and services; and the business' proposed marketing, 
staffing, and financial forecasts. The business plan briefly indicates that it proposes to establish the 
business in underutilized business zones, claiming this will generate jobs for U.S. workers in these 
underutilized areas, will improve the wages and working conditions for U.S. workers, and will 
improve the safety and life quality of U.S. citizens. The busi
1
ess plan Idescribes the proposed 
consulting business; its establishment in an underutilized area of Texas; the Petitioner's 
4 
I 
experience; and the financial management and information technology industries. However, it does 
not sufficiently document the potential prospective impact, including the asserted economic and 
societal benefits to the United States. 
The business plan projects that inf ive years the consulting business will hire 15 direct employees, pay 
wages of 3.78 million dollars, and generate thirty thousand dollars in rental income for the local 
community. However, the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing 
projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized. 
The Petitioner also has not provided corroborating evidence demonstrating that his business' future 
staffing levels and business activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to underutilized 
areas of Texas and the United States. While the Petitioner expresses his desire to contribute to the 
United States and its underutilized areas, he has not established with specific, probative evidence that 
his endeavor will have broader implications in his field, will have significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers, or will have other substantial positive economic effects in an economically underutilized area 
ofl ITexas. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See id. Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the record 
lacks evidence showing that creating 15 direct jobs and paying wages of 3.78 million dollars and 
commercial rent of over thirty thousand dollars over a five-year period rises to the level of national 
importance. 
The Petitioner further claims on appeal that the national importance of his proposed endeavor is 
evidenced in industry reports and articles. The reports and articles relate to the economic benefits of 
immigrants and entrepreneurship; labor shortages in the banking and financial services industries, 
workforce concerns in the finance and accounting industries; corporate growth opportunities; and 
financial professionals helping against cybersecurity threats. We recognize the importance of the 
finance industry and related careers, and the significant contributions from immigrants who have 
become successful entrepreneurs; however, merely working in the financial services and information 
technology fields or starting a financial management and information technology consulting business 
is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I &N Dec. 
at 889. 
In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the 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. 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. The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact 
or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
We further note that the record includes an expert opinion from rofessor emeritus 
of accounting and operations management of finance at,_______, University,,_______ ~ 
School of Business in New York. The opinion includes an analysis of the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor stating, "[The Petitioner] will work in an area of substantial merit and 
national importance." (emphasis omitted). The opinion explains the Petitioner's professional 
5 
experience, the expected growth of job opportunities for financial managers, and the job 
responsibilities of financial managers. However, the opinion's focus on the need for financial 
managers and how the Petitioner's professional experience makes him well positioned to help the 
financial management industry with his professional skills, does demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
specific endeavor may have a prospective impact in his field. The opinion does not focus on the 
Petitioner's specific endeavor and it having a potential prospective impact on the U.S. economy, or in 
the fields of his proposed endeavor, financial management and information technology consulting. 
Simply stating that his work would support an important industry is not sufficient to meet the "national 
importance" requirement under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor extends beyond his business and his 
future clients to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Beyond general assertions, he has not demonstrated that the 
work he proposes to undertake as the chief executive officer of his proposed financial management 
and information technology consulting business offers original innovations that contribute to 
advancements in his industry or otherwise has broader implications for his field. The economic and 
societal benefits that the Petitioner claims depend on numerous factors, and the Petitioner did not offer 
a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between his proposed business' financial management and 
information technology consulting work and the claimed economic results. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs. 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 of L-A-C-, 26 I &N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 
(BIA2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible) . 
111. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The appeal will bed ismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6