dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 04, 2024 In Re: 28952554 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, 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 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 merited a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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 
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. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to lead and develop his business, .____________ _, as an 
entrepreneur and CEO. The company would provide financial consulting, loans, and collections 
services to small and medium-sized businesses. In his decision, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner is eligible for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 The only issue remaining on appeal is whether the Petitioner merits, as a matter of discretion, 
a national interest waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification. 
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that he does not. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Here, the Director concluded, without any analysis, that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of 
substantial merit and national importance. We agree that the evidence regarding the impact of 
entrepreneurs in the national economy is sufficient to show its substantial merit in the area of business. 
Regarding the national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Director noted in his request for 
evidence (RFE) that the evidence initially submitted did not show that this requirement had been met. 
In his response to the RFE, the Petitioner referred to his personal statement and resume, the business 
plan for his company, and several articles and reports. He initially focused on his work experience as 
an entrepreneur and manager for companies involved in financial services and debt collection. 
However, as noted above, the first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on the potential 
prospective impact of the specific proposed endeavor, whereas a petitioner's experience and record of 
success in related activities are among the factors considered under the second prong. 
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). 
2 The Director's decision concludes that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
based solely upon his bachelor's degree in economics. While this conclusion is based upon an incomplete analysis, the 
evidence of record establishes that the Petitioner also has the required five years of progressive, post-baccalaureate 
experience in his specialty. so we agree that he has established his eligibility as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 
2 
The Petitioner next highlighted the economic impact of his proposed endeavor, relying mainly upon 
the projections included in his business plan. These include his plan to hire 37 employees within the 
first five years of the business' operation, as well as generating over $9 million in sales over those 
initial five years. An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, may have 
national importance. Id. at 890. Here, however, the business plan does not adequately support these 
projections of job and revenue creation. It explains that small- and medium-sized businesses will be 
served, that it will be located in thd Imetropolitan area, use a website and social 
media for marketing, and provide financial consulting, loans, and collections services. But it lacks 
sufficient justifications for its projections for the volume of sales of these services or the hiring of 
employees needed to provide them, relying instead upon broad metrics such as the concentration of 
business establishments in the state of Florida. As the Petitioner is asserting that his specific proposed 
endeavor will have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have other substantial positive 
economic effects, the source of his projections are key to his argument. Here, the broad regional and 
industry data provided do not provide an adequate justification for the projections for his specific 
business. 
In addition, the record does not establish that even if the job creation and revenue projections included 
in the Petitioner's business plan are well-supported and reasonable, those projections show a 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have other substantial positive economic effects. As 
noted above, potential job creation or other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area, may be a factor in showing that an endeavor has national importance. 
In his initial filing, the Petitioner referred to a metric called the Distressed Communities Index (DCI), 
and asserted that his business' location in I I Florida places it in "one of the most 
economically distressed communities in the U.S." However, the record does not include evidence to 
support these claims, nor does it contain evidence about the DCI, its source, and its conclusions. The 
Petitioner did not supplement the record in this regard when responding to the Director's RFE, instead 
claiming that the state of Florida is an "SBA Hubzone." But he also did not provide documentary 
evidence regarding Hubzones, or explain why his business' location in a historically underutilized 
business area would be of national importance. Further, the Petitioner does not explain how the 
potential addition of 3 7 jobs over the first five years ofl Ioperations would be of significance 
in the area in alleviating any economic distress or addressing commercial underutilization. 
The Petitioner also submitted several reports which discuss the economic impact of immigrant 
entrepreneurs, and stated that those like the Petitioner "are an essential component of the U.S. 
economic market" and provide millions of jobs for U.S. workers. These included papers and articles 
from organizations such as New American Economy, Harvard Business School, cnbc.com and 
Inc.com. While there is no doubt about the national importance of entrepreneurs in general to the 
national economy, simply claiming membership in a class or occupation is not sufficient to establish 
national importance, as the focus of the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework is "the 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. The papers and articles submitted help to show that the proposed endeavor is generally in an area 
of substantial merit, but the Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential prospective impact of his 
specific proposed endeavor. 
3 
Another element of the Petitioner's claim regarding the national importance of his proposed endeavor 
focuses on what he called the "business development" aspect of his business, wherein he stated that 
he will "create value" for small and medium-sized businesses in the U.S. by providing his expert 
consultations on the optimization of business processes, sales, and marketing. He asserted that this 
will have national importance by helping these businesses to become more resilient to economic 
downturns, thus keeping their workers employed. I I clients could potentially enjoy 
improved economic resiliency resulting from the company's services. But in the same way that 
teaching activities proposed by the petitioner in Dhanasar were not shown to have a broader impact 
on the field of STEM education, here the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor 
would have broader implications in the field of business on the U.S. economy beyond the companies 
on the receiving end o±i !services. Id. at 893. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, we disagree with the Director and conclude that the Petitioner 
has not established that his proposed endeavor would be of national importance. He therefore has not 
shown that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their 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. Id. at 890. 
In her decision, the Director listed some of the evidence submitted, as well as the factors considered 
in determining whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. While she 
acknowledged the Petitioner's skills and abilities relating to the proposed endeavor, the Director 
concluded that the record did not show a record of success or interest in the Petitioner's work sufficient 
to establish that he qualified under the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner initially asserts that the Director "imposed novel substantive and evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations." However, he does not identify any instances 
in which the Director went beyond the regulations governing either the underlying EB-2 classification 
or the national interest waiver. Instead, in further developing his argument, the Petitioner asserts that 
the Director overlooked evidence of his decades of experience in the banking and factoring industries, 
as well as other evidence which he asserts addresses the other factors listed in the Director's decision. 
Regarding the Petitioner's education and experience relating to his proposed endeavor, the record does 
include evidence relating to this factor. In addition to his degree in economics, corporate documents 
show that he founded two companies in Brazil, and letters from some of his clients and business 
partners attest that those companies provided services in the areas of factoring and loans. While this 
evidence does not establish a record of success, as it is insufficient to show that these companies 
thrived, experienced growth, and obtained a positive reputation within their industry, it does show his 
previous relevant experience as an entrepreneur and businessperson in the same field as his proposed 
endeavor. 
4 
The Petitioner also highlights what he interprets as negative conclusions in the Director's decision 
regarding some of the other second prong factors. While we note that the Director did not directly 
analyze these factors in her decision, we will address the Petitioner's assertions below. 
As evidence of his plans relating to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner states that the business plan 
forl Iprovides details including projections of employment and revenue, demonstrating his 
"thoughtful approach and strategic vision for the future." However, as we noted above, those 
projections are not sufficiently supported, and the plan mainly focuses on the Petitioner's 
qualifications, the industry in which it will operate, and broad business concepts applicable to all 
companies. Issues such as funding and customer base and acquisition are only briefly touched upon, 
and the Petitioner's assertion that he will provide the initial fonding from his own assets is not 
supported by documentary evidence of those assets. 
Related to the above, the Petitioner also asserts that he has shown that he is making progress towards 
achieving his proposed endeavor, and that it has the interest of potential customers. We acknowledge 
the evidence showing thatl Ihas been established as a legal entity, but the letters highlighted 
in his RFE response are from clients of his Brazilian businesses and do not shown progress or an 
interest in his proposed business in the U.S. As these are separate markets subject to very different 
business conditions, the Petitioner's assertion that they show his ability to gamer interest and support 
is not persuasive. 
We acknowledge that petitioners for a national interest waiver are not required to establish that their 
proposed endeavors are more likely than not to succeed. Id. at 890. But they still must show that they 
are well positioned to advance those endeavors. After considering the totality of the evidence and the 
factors analyzed above, we agree with the Director and conclude that the Petitioner has not established 
that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has established his eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. However, he has not shown that his proposed endeavor is of national 
importance, or that he is well positioned to advance that endeavor, and therefore he does not merit a 
national interest waiver of the EB-2 classification's job offer requirement. Since the identified basis 
for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the 
Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the third prong of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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