dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 25, 2024 In Re: 34888229 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of 
exceptional ability, 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. 
§ 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualified for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability, she 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 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&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. Because 
this classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a United States employer, a 
separate showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national 
interest. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A United States 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the [ noncitizen] has a degree, 
diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, 
or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability; 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) 
showing that the [ noncitizen] has at least ten years of full-time experience 
in the occupation for which he or she is being sought; 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular 
profession or occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the [ noncitizen] has commanded a salary, or other 
renumeration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or 
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to 
the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or 
business organizations. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides, "If the above standards do not readily apply to 
the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility." 
Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 1 If a petitioner does so, we will then consider the totality of the material provided in a 
final merits determination and assess whether the record shows that the petitioner is recognized as 
having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. See Kazarian 
v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the documentation is 
first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final 
merits determination). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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. 
1 USCIS has confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of exceptional 
ability. 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
2 
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). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 2 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 
thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner demonstrates 
that (1) the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the 
noncitizen 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, indicate 
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 
The Petitioner seeks to establish and operate ____________ a technology-driven 
financial consulting firm. The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of 
exceptional ability. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
2 See Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
3 
A. Eligibility for the EB-2 Classification 
With respect to the underlying EB-2 classification, the Director found that the Petitioner met at least 
three of the six categories listed above and concluded, without conducting a final merits determination, 
that the Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability. Meeting at least three criteria, 
however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. Where a petitioner meets 
initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the material provided in a final merits 
determination and assess whether the record shows the petitioner possesses exceptional ability. See 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the 
documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the 
context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 
(D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is 
consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone 
but by its quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, 
to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
In our de novo review of the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying classification, we will withdraw 
the portion of the Director's decision concluding that the Petitioner has established that she is an 
individual of exceptional ability. 
However, resolution of the issues pertaining to the Petitioner's eligibility for a waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus of a labor certification, under the Dhanasar analytical framework are dispositive 
of this appeal. For that reason, we will reserve consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility for the 
requested EB-2 category. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need 
not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter 
of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal in 
removal proceedings where an applicant did not otherwise qualify for relief). 
B. Dhanasar's First Prong: The Proposed Endeavor's Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish 
the proposed endeavor's substantial merit 
and national importance because she "introduced a new proposed endeavor" in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE). On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director incorrectly 
"assessed the national importance and substantial merit" of her proposed endeavor and "failed to 
properly consider the evidence" under the Dhanasar framework. In the petition, the Petitioner stated 
her intention to pursue a leadership role in the financial and budget management sector within U.S. 
companies. However, in her response to the RFE, the Petitioner shifted her plans, stating instead that 
she now intends to open and operate a financial consulting firm to provide comprehensive support and 
guidance to businesses of all sizes. This is not permissible and, in denying the Petition, the Director 
determined that the Petitioner's business plan was insufficient to establish the proposed endeavor's 
national importance, as its effective date of May 2024 occurred after the petition's initial filing date 
of September 15, 2023. We agree. The Petitioner's initial description of her proposed endeavor did 
not include plans to open and operate a business. It was only upon issuance of the RFE that the 
Petitioner, for the first time, presented her proposed endeavor of establishing a business to offer 
financial consulting services. 
4 
The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). Further, the purpose of an RFE is to elicit information 
that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition 
is filed. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), 103.2(b)(8), 103.2(b)(12). A petitioner may not make material 
changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See 
Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Here, the Petitioner has made 
significant changes to her initial proposed endeavor of seeking a financial/budget management 
position. As the Dhanasar framework requires an analysis of the proposed endeavor's substantial 
merit and national importance, such a change is material to her eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner's new proposed endeavor in the RFE reply, and contended in this appeal, describe a 
new set of facts regarding the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor to open and 
operate her financial consulting firm was presented after the filing date and cannot retroactively 
establish eligibility. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner made an impermissible material 
change to her proposed endeavor. We will therefore adjudicate the petition under the fact pattern as 
originally presented: the Petitioner's plan to seek leadership positions in the financial/budget 
management sector of U.S. companies. We will consider the material changes she made post-filing. 
The record includes a brief, recommendation letters, and industry reports and articles. While we do 
not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed the record and have considered 
the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest waiver. The Petitioner underscores the role of a 
financial manager and states that the position holds substantial merit and national importance by 
"ensuring the financial stability and security of key industries." In determining whether the proposed 
endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. The relevant question 
is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, 
we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 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. Here, the record does not include adequate corroborating 
evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in the 
financial management industry, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive 
economic effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner highlights her 12 years of financial management experience and asserts that her 
professional background qualifies her as a person of substantial merit and national importance. 
Although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, 
they are misplaced in the context of the firstDhanasar prong. The Petitioner's professional experience 
is generally material to Dhanasar' s second prong-whether an individual is well positioned to 
advance a proposed endeavor-but they are generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong­
whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. 
See id. at 888-91. The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself, not the petitioner. Id. The 
Petitioner must establish that her specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar's first 
prong. The Petitioner however has not shown that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake 
5 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for the United States. 
The Petitioner states that she intends to add value to companies by training the next generation of 
professionals and sharing her knowledge with employees who will carry it into their future business 
ventures. She also notes that, as a financial manager, she will play a crucial role in making strategic 
financial decisions that can significantly impact a company's growth and success. Although we 
acknowledge the Petitioner's evidence and assertions, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown 
that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her clients to enhance societal welfare 
on a broader scale indicative of national importance. 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. Here, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor's impact will be nationally important. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has 
national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such 
claims. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. 
See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 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. Since this issue 
is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby also reserve the appellate 
arguments regarding her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. 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 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6