dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 06, 2025 In Re: 34930621 
Appeal of Nebraska 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 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish eligibility 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). 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. Id. 
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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&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, 1 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 
The 
Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 immigrant classification as an advanced 
degree professional, but did not establish her eligibility for a national interest waiver under the 
Dhanasar framework. For the reasons set forth below, we agree that the Petitioner has not established 
eligibility for the requested national interest waiver and dismiss the appeal. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit 
may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, 
culture, health, or education. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
In her initial filing, the Petitioner stated that she intended to work in the United States as a financial 
manager to provide specialized services and planned "to focus [her] contributions on working in 
[r]elationship [m]anagement, [i]nvestment, [p]eople [m]anagement, and [f]inancial [d]epartments 
areas to benefit [flinancial [i]nstitutions and clients." In support of this endeavor, she submitted a 
professional plan in which she explained that in order to provide these services she would rely on 
various processes and tools, including using data analytics, business intelligence, and financial 
planning and forecasting. Additionally, the Petitioner stated she would provide services to small and 
large businesses in both the private and public sectors, and could accordingly make significant 
contributions to the field and generate economic growth. She also indicated that she intends to "offer 
financial management consulting services to Latin American companies interested in expanding into 
the U.S. market," and could "help U.S. companies wishing to enter the Brazilian market." Ultimately 
the Petitioner emphasized that these financial management services would "bring significant benefits 
to both individuals and businesses alike, lead[ing] to a better financial future for all parties." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) requesting additional evidence on the 
substantive nature of her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner submitted a new professional plan stating 
that, as a financial manager, she intended to primarily focus on delivering "specialized services in 
[ s ]trategic [b]usiness [p]lanning, [ f]inancial [ m ]anagement, [ a ]ccounting, and [p]eople [ m ]anagement, 
all geared towards achieving exemplary customer services within the business sector and the private 
banking industry." Additionally, she asserted she intended to "introduce a transformative initiative 
aimed at ushering in [d]igital [t]ransformations within the U.S. financial landscape." In her updated 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
professional plan, the Petitioner stated that her proposed endeavor would include executing activities 
tailored to the business and private banking sector, including: strategic business planning with data 
analytics; digital financial and tax management; blockchain for transparent financial analysis; artificial 
intelligence (AI)-driven accounting services; sales practices and personalized AI assistants; people 
management with a focus on digital era customer services; sustainable and inclusive fintech solutions; 
and chatbots for enhanced customer services. Within her new professional plan, the Petitioner also 
provided an overview of the benefits of each of these activities, and explained how these activities are 
generally executed in the industry. The Petitioner also asserted that the "crux of her proposed endeavor 
centers on the development and execution of a meticulous strategy to broaden the client portfolios of 
various companies operating within the banking sector [ which would be] achieved through the creation 
of tailor-made financial services." 
As additional evidence of the substantial merit and national importance of her endeavor, the Petitioner 
submitted an expert opinion, letters of recommendation from her former colleagues attesting to her 
expertise and success in the financial management field, and various industry reports and articles on 
the financial managers profession, U.S.-Brazil trade statistics, as well as articles discussing the 
shortage of financial advisors in the United States. 2 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner 
qualifies for a national interest waiver because she did not meet the 3-prong Dhanasar framework. In 
regard to prong one, the Director determined that the record did not contain sufficient details 
describing the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, nor did she establish that her proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit or national importance. Instead, the Director concluded that the 
professional plans contained vague descriptions of concepts and general duties performed by financial 
managers, but did not consistently explain the Petitioner's specific plans for her work in the United 
States. For example, the Director noted that, while the Petitioner initially stated she would provide 
services to Latin American companies interested in doing business in the United States, as well as U.S. 
companies expanding into the Brazilian market, her new professional plan submitted in response to 
the Director's RFE did not elaborate or address how she intended to assist these companies. The 
Director also concluded that the evidence did not establish that the Petitioner's work would result in 
broader implications at a level commensurate with national importance beyond the direct benefits to 
her prospective employers or clients. And the Director determined that, despite her assertions, the 
record did not establish that the Petitioner's work as a financial manager will significantly enhance 
societal welfare, or have the significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise result in 
substantial positive economic effects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in concluding that her professional plan was 
vague, and claims the plan clearly delineates a comprehensive strategy that is specific and directly 
applicable to the needs of businesses in the United States. As an example, she reiterates her plans to 
offer specialized consulting services "to Latin American companies seeking to enter the U.S. market, 
as well as American companies planning to explore the Brazilian market," asserting that her expertise 
in navigating complex commercial laws is a critical component of her service offering. Notably, 
however, she does not acknowledge or address the Director's conclusion that the new business plan 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
3 
submitted in response to the RFE did not address her plans to offer consulting services to Latin 
American companies or U.S. companies planning to expand into the Brazilian market, or otherwise 
explain how she would offer these consulting services. We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions 
on appeal that the new professional plan does not represent a material change to her initial endeavor, 
but she does not explain, for example, how the methodologies and services outlined in her professional 
plan would allow her to assist U.S. companies to expand into the Brazilian market, or otherwise help 
Latin American companies operate in the United States. Instead, the Petitioner reiterates primarily the 
same arguments made before the Director pertaining to the prospective impact of her proposed 
endeavor. 
Upon de novo review of the record, we disagree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner 
did not establish the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor, as the record contains articles 
discussing the importance of the financial managers field. Nonetheless, we agree with the Director's 
conclusion that the Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 
proposed endeavor has national importance as contemplated under the Dhanasar framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner continues to rely on the importance of the financial services sector and the 
importance of bilateral economic relations between the United States and Brazil to establish the 
national importance of her endeavor, but does not establish that her endeavor would meaningfully 
impact the field or the economic relations between the United States and Brazil at a level 
commensurate with national importance. As stated, we agree that the evidence and assertions in the 
record regarding the importance of the industry demonstrate the substantial merit of her endeavor, but 
the industry alone is not sufficient to establish its national importance. Instead, when evaluating 
national importance, we "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor. Dhanasar at 889. 
For example, in Dhanasar we noted that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance because it 
has national or even global implications within a particular field." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
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. 
Additionally, we disagree with the Petitioner's claims that the services she intends to offer, including 
integrating emerging technologies like blockchain and AI technologies into financial services will 
result in substantial improvements to the industry. While the Petitioner's professional plans provide 
broad overviews of these tools and technologies she may use in executing her duties as a financial 
manager, the record does not establish how the Petitioner will impact the industry beyond the 
immediate benefits she may provide to her prospective employers or customers. Likewise, the 
Petitioner's similar claims that her use of advance technologies will restore investor confidence and 
promote responsible business practices are not supported by the record. She does not explain, for 
example, how using these emerging technologies in performing her work for her employers or 
prospective customers will result in broader implications to the field at a level commensurate with 
national importance. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Generalized conclusory statements that do 
not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in 
immigration benefits adjudications). 
4 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions on appeal that through her endeavor, she will be able to 
address deficiencies in financial literacy in the United States, the record does not establish that any 
services she would provide to her prospective customers would result in broader implications at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 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 only benefit the Petitioner's customers or prospective employers would not result in 
broader implications in the field. See Dhanasar at 893. 
Moreover, the testimonial evidence in the record, including the expert opinion letter from Dr. J-B-, do 
not establish the national importance of her endeavor. The expert opinion letter primarily focuses on 
the importance of the financial sector, as well as the Petitioner's specific experience, concluding that 
"her expertise in financial management has both substantial merit and national importance of the 
United States." However, beyond discussing the duties she could perform as a financial manager, 
which including helping companies grow, Dr. J-B- does not explain how this work would result in 
broader implications beyond the immediate benefits to her employers. For example, the expert 
generally reiterates that company growth could result in increased taxes and employment activities, 
but does not explain how the Petitioner's specific work would meaningfully impact this growth or 
otherwise establish that the increased in taxes and employment activities would be "substantial" as 
contemplated in Dhanasar. Accordingly, the letter does not establish how the Petitioner's specific 
endeavor would broadly impact the field or otherwise lead to substantial economic effects. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding a noncitizen's eligibility. The submission of letters from experts supporting 
the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 
460 n.13 (BIA 2011) ( discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony based on 
relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). 
Similarly, while the Petitioner claims on appeal that the reference letters in the record "highlight her 
exceptional performance and her significant contributions to the financial sector," this evidence does 
not establish the prospective impact on her endeavor. Rather, the letters show that she was praised for 
her work in prior companies for her ability to exceed established goals and meet all pertinent deadlines. 
We recognize that the Petitioner has had a successful career, 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." Dhanasar at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has 
demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor. The letters of recommendation 
primarily focus on the Petitioner's past experience without addressing the prospective impact of her 
endeavor, and accordingly lack relevance with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. 
The record also does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor "has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area." See Dhanasar at 890. Although the record discusses the economic impact of the 
field, the Petitioner has not shown her specific work would result in substantial economic effects. For 
example, while any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact a local economy, 
the record does not contain provided projected employment numbers and revenue growth 
5 
contributable to her specific endeavor to establish how her endeavor will result in substantial economic 
benefits discussed in Dhanasar. Id. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor would be 
of national importance, and she therefore does not meet the requirements of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 
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. Since 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 US. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) 
(holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are 
unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6