dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 2 3 6 715 00 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 5, 2023 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, who has worked in finance and other fields, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, and 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 record established 
the Petitioner's eligibility for classification as an individual of exceptional ability, but not 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 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 
A petitioner seeking a national interest waiver 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 . This classification ordinarily requires that the individual's 
services be sought by a U.S. employer. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. But U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may waive the job offer requirement if the petitioner shows the waiver 
to be in the national interest. Section 203 (b )(2 )(B)(i) of the Act. 
There is no statutory or regulatory definition of the term "national interest." The precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 8 84 (AAO 2016), established a framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver petitions. Under this framework, after a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 
classification, USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner 
demonstrates: (1) that the individual's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) that the individual 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 
labor certification. 1 
The first prong , regarding substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the individual's 
specific proposed endeavor. The endeavor may show this merit 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 foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she 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; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor ; and the interest of potential customers, users , investors , or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether , in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offerorforthe 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 foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability. 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. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 
In his native Brazil, the Petitioner served as the regional controller of "a company that operates [fast 
food] franchises" from 1991 to 2004; corporate controller and commercial manager of a real estate 
development company from 2004 to 2008 ; and corporate controller for a refrigeration company for 
about three months in 2009. In 2012, he "founded ... a real estate brokerage firm" and served as its 
general director until he entered the United States in May 2019 as the F-2 spouse of an F-1 
nonimmigrant student. 
The Petitioner's initial description of the proposed endeavor is vague and general, providing few 
details beyond his intention to continue working as a treasurer and controller for unidentified 
1 See also Poursina v. USCJS, 936F .3d 868 (9th Cir.2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 See MatterofDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
"companies in various industries," where he would "help[] companies plan, direct, and coordinate 
their financial targets," and also "seize new investment and market opportunities abroad." The plural 
references to "companies" appears to indicate an intent to work short-term or simultaneously for a 
succession of companies, rather than for a single employer. The burden is on the Petitioner to 
demonstrate that serial employment of this nature would have national importance, rather than 
temporarily benefiting a small number of individual employers. The Petitioner asse1ied that his "plan 
is of national importance to the U.S. because there is a high demand for professionals in [his] field." 
Many businesses rely on, and benefit from, their own financial officials, butthis localized benefit does 
not address how the Petitioner's work would have national importance as a corporate controller or 
treasurer. The Petitioner stated that the Bureau of Labor Statistics anticipates "around 108,600 new 
jobs" for"finance professionals"by 2028, but he did not explain how his work in the field would "help 
fill this demand" at a level indicating national impmiance. The Petitioner also did not explain why 
this claimed shortage would justify waiving labor certification, which exists to address such shmiages. 
In an advisory letter prepared to support the petition, a professor at the City University of New York 
stated: "U.S. companies doing business or planning to do business in Brazil would benefit from the 
expertise and skills of a Business and Financial manager, such as [the Petitioner] with an extensive 
knowledge of the Business Environment and regulatory landscape in Brazil." While the Petitioner's 
expe1iise could benefit his employer, the writer did not explain how this advantage has national 
importance. Aggregate data about the entire economy of Brazil do not establish that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor has national importance for the United States, because his work would not 
encompass all businesses in either the United States or Brazil. For the same reason, general 
background information about the Brazilian economy and the role of financial controllers has limited 
value relative to the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. 
The overall importance of a given occupation does not necessarily lend national importance to 
individual workers in that occupation. A petitioner must show that the benefit from the proposed 
endeavor will significantly extend beyond the individual's employer or customers to impact the 
industry or field more broadly at a level indicating national importance. For example, in Matter of 
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 Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), stating that the Petitioner had not shown that the 
proposed endeavor "has a broader impact upon the field of finance." In response, the Petitioner stated 
that he "plans to continue his career ... as a Treasurer and Controller in the field of Finance," but he 
also submitted evidence relating to two unrelated business ventures. The evidence shows that the 
Petitioner established a business that "specializes in offering professional wallpaper sales and 
installation." The Petitioner asserted that the business is of national importance because he intends to 
expand the company, and it is located in a densely populated area near an airport, "which allows [the 
Petitioner] ... to travel to other states and countries to serve clients located in other regions." An 
accompanying business plan describes plans for establishing a franchise. 
The business plan for the wallpaper business refers to the Petitioner as a financial professional and 
also a realtor. The Petitioner submitted a copy of his then-current Florida license as a real estate sales 
associate. The Petitioner did not explain how serving as a real estate sales associate, and as the chief 
3 
executive officer of his own wallpaper company, would "continue his career ... as a Treasurer and 
Controller." 
A petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(1 ). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in 
an eff 01i to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). Here, the Petitioner has materially changed his 
petition to focus on a business and industry that played no part in the initial filing. 
When he filed the petition, the Petitioner stated his intention "to provide professional treasury and 
controllership services to U.S. based companies." Describing his employment history, the Petitioner 
originally stated: "In my most recent endeavor, I founded ... a real estate brokerage firm in Brazil in 
2012." The new evidence in the RFE response shows that the brokerage finn was not his "most recent 
endeavor" at the time of filing. He organized the wallpaper company in September 2019, about six 
weeks before he filed the petition in October. The Petitioner has not explained why his initial 
description of the proposed endeavor did not mention his newly-formed company. Also, his Florida 
real estate license has no apparent connection to the original proposed endeavor regarding employment 
as a treasurer or controller. 
The RFE response shows that the Petitioner has pursued divergent business activities in the United 
States, but the evidence does not show that he has sought or secured employment as a treasurer or 
controller as he initially indicated when describing the proposed endeavor. The RFE response includes 
three documents described as "Letters oflntent to Hire," but all three letters are from clients of the 
Petitioner's wallpaper company. The letters refer to decoration projects, and do not indicate that the 
companies have hired the Petitioner as a treasurer or controller, or that they intend to do so. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not shown that he meets any of the 
three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. Regarding the first prong, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not shown the importance of his proposed endeavor "to sufficiently extend beyond an 
organization or clients to impact the industry or field more broadly." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he has documented his "importance in the finance industry" and 
submitted a business plan containing "concrete projections of the benefits he may off er to the U.S." 
But, as outlined above, the business plan concerns a wallpaper company, not "the finance industry." 
To qualify for the national interest waiver under Dhanasar, a petitioner must identify "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. In this case, the Petitioner has 
not identified a single, consistent, and cohesive proposed endeavor. Instead, he has established a 
wallpaper company and secured a license to sell real estate. He has claimed that he seeks employment 
as a treasurer or controller, but his evidence does not corroborate that claim. 
The inconsistency in the proposed endeavor affects the Petitioner's arguments on appeal. The 
Petitioner states, for instance, that his "proposed endeavor will result in the potential employment of 
U.S. workers, because as his served companies/clients increase sales within the nation ... more 
workers within the supply chain will be needed." But the appeal includes another copy of the business 
plan for the wallpaper company, and another copy of his real estate sales license. The Petitioner has 
4 
not explained how either of these documented business ventures will result in higher employment at 
his customers' businesses, or how they relate to the proposed endeavor as initially described. 
The Petitioner's statement on appeal moves back and forth between his wallpaper company and his 
unsubstantiated assertions about working in finance. For example, he states: "I intend ... to work as 
a Treasurer Controller in the Financial field and contribute to the U.S. economy, and its societal 
welfare, through the development and expansion of my U.S. [ wallpaper] company." One paragraph 
in his latest statement begins with the assertion that "finance is one of the most important aspects of 
any business" and ends with the statement that "offering quality professional wallpaper sales and 
installation services and products ... is certainly in the national interest of the United States." The 
Petitioner's statement on appeal describes two different and apparently unrelated activities. 
The separate appellate briefrelies largely on general statements, such as the asse1iion that the proposed 
endeavor "will produce significant national benefits, due to the ripple effects of [the Petitioner's] 
professional activities." But the lack of detail in such broad statements is of particular concern when 
the Petitioner has provided conflicting descriptions of the proposed endeavor. The brief also indicates 
that the "Petitioner's proposed endeavor ... is particularly important in present times, where the 
COVID-19 pandemic has affected the production and sales goals of multiple companies in the United 
States." The brief does not explain how the Petitioner's concrete, documented U.S. business activity 
improves the ability of "multiple companies" to meet their "production and sales goals." 
Because the Petitioner has provided inconsistent descriptions of his proposed endeavor in the United 
States, we cannot conclude that he has met his burden of proof to show that the proposed endeavor 
has national importance or otherwise satisfies the requirements oftheDhanasar framework. The first 
iteration of the proposed endeavor, involving employment in the United States as a treasurer or 
controller, is the least documented in the record. The recent business activity shown in the record is 
not consistent with the Petitioner's initially stated goal of securing employment as a treasurer or 
controller of a U.S. business. 
Because the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because this issue determines the 
outcome of the appeal, we reserve the arguments regarding the remaining prongs of the Dhanasar 
framework, relating to whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and 
whether, on balance, a waiver of the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 3 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not met the required "national importance" element of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude as a matter of discretion that he has not established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (197 6) ("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). 
5