dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23791748 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 2, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification, as well as a national interest waiver 
of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification . See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b )(2) . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner did not 
qualify for the EB-2 classification, and that she had not established that a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that she is eligible for the EB-2 classification and 
for a national interest waiver. In these proceedings, it is the Applicant's burden to establish eligibility 
for the requested benefit by a preponderance of evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361; 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) . 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S . employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or 
[individuals] of exceptional ability . -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an [individual's] services in the sciences, arts, 
professions, or business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion,2 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner alleges on appeal that the Director "did not apply the proper 
standard of proof in this case, instead imposing a stricter standard ... to [her] detriment." Except 
where a different standard is specified by law, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of 
proof governing immigration benefit requests. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375 (AAO 
2010); see also Matter of Martinez, 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); Matter of Sao Hoo, 11 I&N 
Dec. 151, 152 (BIA 1965). Accordingly, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof 
governing national interest waiver petitions. See generally 1 USCIS Policy Manual, E.4(B), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While the Petitioner asserts on appeal that she has provided 
evidence sufficient to demonstrate her eligibility for the EB-2 classification and a national interest 
waiver, she does not further explain or identify any specific instance in which the Director applied a 
standard of proof other than the preponderance of evidence in denying the petition. 
A. EB-2 Classification 
As stated above, the first step to establishing eligibility for a national interest waiver is demonstrating 
qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or 
an individual of exceptional ability. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not meet EB-2 
classification eligibility through either avenue. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she is eligible for 
the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 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). 
2 
In order to show that a Petitioner holds a qualifying advanced degree, the petition must be 
accompanied by "[aa ]n official academic record showing that the alien has a United States advanced 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). On appeal, the Petitioner does 
not assert nor the does record show that she possesses a United States advanced degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree. Id. 
Alternatively, a petitioner may present "[aa ]n official academic record showing that the alien has a 
United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters 
from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least five years of progressive post­
baccalaureate experience in the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). The Director denied the 
petition in part, determining that the Petitioner did not have the requisite degree and work experience 
for eligibility through this regulation. Based on our de novo review of the record, we withdraw the 
Director's determination and conclude that she qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced 
degreed professional under this alternative regulatory path. Id. 
The Petitioner initially presented a copy of her college diploma and academic course transcripts 
showing that she obtained a bachelor's degree in mathematics from the Universidade lin 
1998. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) she submitted an education credential 
evaluation in which the evaluator solely considered this degree and determined that it was equivalent 
to a U.S. bachelor's degree in mathematics. Based on this evidence, we conclude that she possesses 
the foreign degree equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
Collectively considering other evidence in the record we also determine that she gained at least five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty after obtaining this degree. According to the letters 
from her former employers, the Petitioner worked for different entities owned by the same 
multinational conglomerate in Brazil from 1998 until 2017 when she entered the United States as a 
nonimmigrant. The authors discussed how she was employed in successively more responsible 
positions during this timeframe which carried job titles such as project manager, deputy manager, 
assistant vice president, vice president, and director. Her employment in these roles is supported by 
copies of her tax documentation for several of those years, internal company news bulletins which 
reference her employment in various positions, and other contemporaneous evidence of her 
employment. 
The record also contains a letter from an official of B-, a bank located in Florida, who confirms that 
the Petitioner was employed from April 2018 through at least January 2019 (when the petition was 
filed), first as a product and project manager, and then as the bank's vice president ofl I 
I !solutions. Here, the evidence in the record indicates more likely than not, that the Petitioner 
possessed the requisite post-baccalaureate progressive work experience at the time of filing this 
petition. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner has shown her eligibility for the EB-2 classification under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
While she also maintains on appeal that she qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability, her 
assertions regarding her eligibility as an individual possessing exceptional ability are moot. 
3 
B. National Interest Waiver 
The remaining issue to be determined 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. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. The Petitioner initially provided statements about her proposed endeavor 
indicating: 
I intend to continue my career in the United States as a Financial Operations Director 
[i]n the fields of wealth management, credit risk management, credit risk management, 
and fund administration. I will not only expand the global reach of all companies that 
hire me, but I will also enhance the financial capabilities, profitability, and customer 
portfolio of all organizations that require my expert services. 
To further illustrate the nature of her proposed endeavor, she provided her job offer letter from B-, the 
bank in Florida that hired her in 2018. She also offered a list of U.S. companies that she intended to 
seek employment with, for positions with job titles such as manager, director, and senior manager. 
The Director asked for more information and evidence to establish the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor in the RFE. In response, the Petitioner submitted a statement indicating that instead 
of working for a U.S. employer, she will alternatively focus her endeavor on the operation of L-, a 
"management consulting company that will specialize in providing comprehensive consulting services to 
financial institutions such as international banks, local small and midsized banks, financial advisory 
companies, and Registered Investment Advisory (RIA) companies." L- was established in Florida in 
2021 - a year and half after the filing of petition. The Petitioner asserts that she wholly owns L-, a 
company that "will operate as a consultancy business dedicated to formulating strategies aimed at 
improving the services offered to international, mostly Brazilian investors, through the private banking 
and wealth management sector in the United States." 
The Petitioner submitted L-' s business plan which states she will be the director of operations for the 
organization, and "will oversee all business activities to ensure they yield the desired result and are 
consistent with the [c]ompany's objectives .... She will recruit and hire employees, [implement] 
procedures and guidelines, and ensure that each project deadline is met. ... She will offer [clients] an 
independent view of the business considering the consumers' best interests and [develop] solutions based 
on socially responsible practices and investments." 
The Petitioner's initial description of the proposed endeavor did not include plans to form such a 
company; instead, the Petitioner initially indicated that she would work as a financial operations 
director who will benefit the nation through her employment with established U.S. companies. We 
conclude her RFE response presented a new set of facts regarding the proposed endeavor, which is 
material to eligibility for a national interest waiver. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 
248 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978); see also Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. The Petitioner must meet 
eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Here, the Petitioner's 
plans to establish a new company and perform services as a director of operations for this entity -
presented after the filing date cannot retroactively establish eligibility. A petitioner may not make 
4 
material changes to a petition that has already been filed to make an apparently deficient petition 
conform to USCIS requirements . See Matter of Izummi , 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm 'r 1998) ; see 
also Matter of Katigbak , 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971) , which requires that beneficiaries 
seeking employment-based immigrant classification must possess the necessary qualifications as of 
the filing date of the visa petition. 
It appears the Petitioner sought to address the Director 's concerns regarding what organization would 
utilize her financial operations expertise and how her services as a financial operations director would 
rise to the level of national importance. But in doing so she has significantly changed her proposed 
endeavor. Notably , the Petitioner does not adequately explain how she would allocate her time 
between performing services while employed by a U.S. company (which was her initially stated 
endeavor) , and her proposed activities newly presented in the RFE response and reiterated on appeal, 
such as providing administrative and managerial oversight of her own business . Accordingly , we 
conclude that the focus of her endeavor has materially changed . If significant material changes are 
made to the initial request for approval , a petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval 
of a petition that is not supported by the facts in the record . 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) . For these reasons , 
the petition may not be approved . 
Moreover, even if the Petitioner had presented her plans to establish and operate her own business at 
the time of filing , we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the 
national importance of this endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. The 
Petitioner provided information about her new endeavor indicating that L- will, among other things, "offer 
quality business consulting , project management , and operational review and analyses services to [clients] 
in the U.S." In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the 
national importance of her particular proposed endeavor , as the Petitioner 's evidence did not show that 
her proposed work through the operation and management of L- would have broader implications at a 
level indicative of national importance. 
On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that her endeavor "is national in scope , and will broadly impact the 
nation , produce significant national benefits , due to the ripple effect of her professional activities." 
However , in addres sing national importance in the first prong of the framework , Dhanasar sets out 
that the focus is on the specific endeavor being proposed. As such , we do not consider the indirect 
consequences of a petitioner's activity when determining whether it is of national importance. We 
conclude that the Petitioner has not provided evidence sufficient to support her assertion that her work 
as a financial operations director for one or more U.S. employers , or alternatively as a director of 
operations for her own consultancy firm , would have substantially positive effects or would otherwise 
have broader implications beyond those employers or her own business . 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. Although the 
Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to operate a business that will pro vide valuable financial 
services to her clients , she has not offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospecti ve 
impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national imp ortance. 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. For example , the business plan provides a 
generic five-year forecast for the hiring of employees and the revenue volumes that the entity expects 
5 
to generate during this time period, but the business plan does not sufficiently address when L- will 
commence doing business. The plan forecasts that it will generate revenues exceeding $205,000 in its 
first year of operation, which will steadily climb each year to reach revenues of over $450,000 by the 
end of its fifth year of operation. The Petitioner estimates her business will create at least 4 jobs within 
this five-year timeframe, including her own job as the entity's director of operations. However, the 
plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for its revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately 
explain how these projections will be realized. 
The Petitioner has also not demonstrated that her company's future staffing levels would provide 
substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States. While the Petitioner asserts that L- will 
hire 3 U.S. employees within five years, she has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where the 
company operates is economically depressed, that she would employ a significant population of 
workers in that area, or that her endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial 
economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. Without sufficient evidence 
regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record 
does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's services 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of her eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. It is unnecessary 
to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the appeal. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); see also Matter of L-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 she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6