dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 7, 2023 In Re: 28563046 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner is a financial adviser who 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 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 did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for a 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 
1 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). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director's decision 
did not render a determination as to whether the Petitioner qualifies as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree and instead focused on the Petitioner's 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. 2 Therefore, the issue before us on appeal 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. In discussing the first prong of the analytical framework set forth in 
Dhanasar, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that his endeavor has either 
substantial merit or national importance. 
A. Substantial Merit 
First, we will address the issue of substantial merit, which may be demonstrated in a range of areas 
such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. The 
Director determined that the Petitioner did not explain his endeavor with sufficient detail and "has not 
established that he intends to assist entrepreneurs and small businesses to grow" or that he "intend[ s] 
to be an entrepreneur." Despite acknowledging the Petitioner's submission of industry reports, 
professional journals, and statements from industry experts, the Director concluded that the Petitioner 
did not establish that his endeavor has substantial merit. We disagree. 
The record contains supporting statements from the Petitioner in which he highlighted his professional 
qualifications and consistently maintained that his proposed endeavor is to use his "business and 
finance expertise to serve as an Independent Ally of [ small and medium-size enterprises] SME in the 
U[.]S[.]" by providing them with business solutions that will develop "staff competencies in finance 
subject matters," enhance "management reporting" to enable informed decision-making, and improve 
"planning and control processes." The Petitioner stated that intends to provide services that will 
include "fit-for-purpose financial planning and control support to my clients through (a) the 
development and implementation of process models, (b) training of personnel and ( c) the research, 
development and promotion of best practices" to ensure "good operational, commercial and financial 
performance of my clients." The Petitioner provided articles discussing the value of improving 
financial literacy and using artificial intelligence to enhance the operations of small businesses. 
We conclude that the record supports the Petitioner's claim that his proposed work as a financial 
adviser within the context of SMEs has substantial merit, and we therefore withdraw the Director's 
adverse conclusion on this issue. 
2 Although the denial does not address the issue of whether the Petitioner merits the EB-2 classification as an advanced 
degree professional. the Director made a favorable detennination on this issue in the previously issued request for evidence 
(RFE). We note that the record supports that prior finding based on the Petitioner's master's degree certificate and 
corresponding transcript from the Universidad I I However, because the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated his eligibility for a national interest waiver on appeal, we need not remand this matter for the purpose of 
having the Director further address the Petitioner's qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. 
2 
B. National Importance 
Notwithstanding our favorable determination on the issue of substantial merit, for the reasons to be 
discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
As noted above, the Petitioner stated that he plans to serve his client businesses by offering business 
solutions that will improve the client entity's staff: management reporting, and internal control 
processes. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner cited to his personal statement as evidence 
in support of his contention that he adequately clarified his endeavor and explained the endeavor's 
"substantial economic, social, and labor benefits as well as the national initiatives it will farther and 
support in the long-term." As although we agree that the Petitioner provided sufficient clarity 
explaining his endeavor, the Petitioner did not claim that the endeavor would result in "substantial 
economic, social, and labor benefits." And despite explaining that the proposed endeavor would offer 
greater financial literacy to prospective SME clients, the Petitioner did not explain how his endeavor 
would result in an economic or social benefit that would reach beyond the specific client entity such 
that the impact would rise to the level of having national importance. 
The RFE response also includes an amended personal statement from the Petitioner and a business 
plan. The former states that the Petitioner intends to help small businesses "successfully address the 
prevailing post COVID-19 pandemic challenges" and assist in "the creation of new and sustainable 
jobs in the U[.]S[.]" The statement highlights the need for "insightful facilitation and coaching" and 
describes the Petitioner as "an enthusiastic facilitator and coach for the development of solutions." 
The statement also underscores the role of "a sustainable and efiicient financial control process," 
asserting that the Petitioner will "add value while participating in key business processes," such as 
strategic planning, ethics and compliance, staff development, resource allocation, performance 
planning and management, and financial reporting. The Petitioner elaborated on his proposed 
endeavor in the business plan, stating that he intends to offer "robust and affordable finance support 
solutions" to SMEs with less than 20 employees in the oil and gas industry in Texas and explaining 
how his services would benefit prospective clients. The business plan also offers financial projections 
showing an anticipated net income of $4385 at the end of the eighth quarter of the endeavor's 
operation. However, neither the additional information about the proposed endeavor nor the 
endeavor's projected income demonstrates that the endeavor would have an impact, economic or 
otherwise, that amounts to national importance as contemplated in Dhanasar. 
In denying the petition, the Director questioned how the Petitioner's offer of advisory services to small 
businesses would result in an impact significant enough to be deemed as having national importance. 
The Director highlighted the individualized nature of the services the Petitioner seeks to offer and 
pointed to the limited impact of such services. The Director determined that the Petitioner's endeavor 
not broadly impact small businesses, but rather would be tailored to fit the specific needs of each 
prospective client. The Director concluded that the Petitioner has not shown that his undertaking has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or offer substantial positive economic effects for the 
nation, or that it would broadly impact the financial services field either nationally or on a global scale. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he provided evidence showing that "the proposed endeavor is the 
subject of national initiatives" and that federal agencies have identified it "as being nationally 
3 
important." We disagree with this assessment of the evidence, which includes a report and a news 
release from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics that highlight job growth within the context of startup 
firms in the United States in 2019 and offer unemployment and industry data. Given that the 
Petitioner's endeavor is not mentioned either in the report or in the news release, it is unclear how 
these submissions establish the national importance of the endeavor which is to provide financial 
services to a limited sector of SME clients within the Texas oil and gas industry. Likewise, although 
several of the previously submitted articles discuss small businesses and the value of financial literacy, 
they do not mention the Petitioner's endeavor or establish that the endeavor would broadly impact 
small businesses either industry-wide or on a national scale. 
The Petitioner also refers to "instances of misunderstanding and misapplication of the law that go 
beyond harmless error and reach levels of abuse of discretion." However, the Petitioner does not point 
to specific examples of this within the Director's denial. In fact, the Petitioner primarily focuses on 
the RFE's treatment of the substantial merit element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
However, as indicated in our earlier discussion, we determined that the decision was incorrect as it 
pertained to the element of substantial merit, and we therefore withdrew that portion of the denial. 
Although the Petitioner broadly argues that he provided evidence that "suffices to establish the 
endeavor's national importance," he does not point to specific evidence or explain how it demonstrates 
this element of Dhanasar 's first prong. Rather, the Petitioner makes general statements about the 
RFE's failure "to adequately assess the evidence" and asserts that the RFE "falls short of 
contemplating the entirety of the evidence." However, the Petitioner does not offer a detailed analysis 
specifically identifying the evidence he claims was not considered. Furthermore, the Petitioner 
focuses almost exclusively on the perceived shortcomings of the RFE and does not specifically point 
to deficiencies in the denial even though the denial, rather than the RFE, is the matter that is currently 
before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner also argues that failure to consider all the relevant evidence submitted has been found 
to be an abuse of discretion and cites to Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1223 (E.D. Mi. 1994), in 
support of this argument. While we agree that an adjudicator should consider the relevant evidence in 
the record, 3 we note that U.S. district court decisions, such as the one the Petitioner cites, are not 
binding precedential authority. The reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due 
consideration when it is properly before us; however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a 
matter oflaw. See Matter ofK-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719 (BIA 1993). More importantly, because the 
Petitioner does not point to the evidence he claims was not considered, he does not sufficiently support 
his claim. In addition, while we consider the record in its entirety, we are not required to address each 
submission, particularly when a submission is not relevant to the issue being discussed. 
In addressing the issue of national importance, the Petitioner highlights "the financial advisory in 
SMEs as a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance." But even if 
this were factually accurate, the assertion indicates that the government recognition pertains broadly 
to SMEs rather than to the Petitioner's specific endeavor. Although SMEs are the Petitioner's target 
clients, the Petitioner has not established that his work with client SMEs, either individually or 
collectively, will broadly impact SMEs in the oil and gas industry. We farther note that the Petitioner 
did not clarify which "financial advisory" and "government entity" he was referring to. As discussed 
3 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
4 
above, the report and news release from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics merely address job growth 
within the context of startup firms and provide unemployment and industry data, but neither 
specifically pertains to the Petitioner's endeavor or discusses the impact such an endeavor may have 
on SMEs either nation-wide or within a particular industry. In essence, the Petitioner does not provide 
evidence showing that his endeavor "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or that it will 
otherwise offer "substantial positive economic effects" that would reach the level of national 
importance as contemplated by Dhanasar. 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The Petitioner also highlights the value of financial literacy among SMEs as being "fundamental to 
ensuring economic stability and recovery." However, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
evidence establishing his endeavor's broader impact on financial literacy and economic stability 
among SMEs in the oil and gas industry. In addressing national importance in the first prong of the 
framework, the Dhanasar decision 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. While the Petitioner's endeavor may improve the financial 
literacy of the client entities that will employ his services, it is unclear how his endeavor will have 
broader implications reaching beyond the clients he will serve. In sum, the Petitioner makes no 
compelling arguments nor offers evidence to overcome the Director's analysis and conclusion 
regarding the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed 
work does not meet the national importance portion of 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 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5