dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 1, 2024 In Re: 31415539 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition and a subsequent motion to reopen 
and reconsider the adverse decision, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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. 
Once 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 a matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• 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 
Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional, and we will not disturb this determination. 2 The only issue on appeal is whether the 
Petitioner has shown that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. Upon review, we conclude that she has not. 
The Petitioner represented in Part 6 of the instant Form 1-140, Basic Information about the Proposed 
Employment, that the job title for her full-time position would be "Financial Manager," and her wages 
would be $131,710 per year. The Petitioner provided the following nontechnical description of her 
proposed employment: "create financial reports, direct investment activities, and develop plans for 
long-term financial goals of their organization." In an accompanying statement about her professional 
background and proposed endeavor, the Petitioner indicated that she planned "to work as an 
independent contractor in the United States upon receiving all necessary business licenses, assuming 
[her] application [was] approved and [ she earned] the right to work legally in the United States of 
America." She concluded by expressing confidence that "the United States would benefit from [her] 
contributions as a Financial Manager." 
In a subsequently issued request for evidence (RFE), the Director asked the Petitioner for more specific 
information about her proposed endeavor and documentation to establish its substantial merit and 
national importance. In response, the Petitioner submitted a business plan and evidence that she has 
formed a company, _______ by filing the Articles of Organization with the New York 
Department of State. In the business plan the Petitioner indicated that: 
will build a solid business structure that can support the growth 
of the organization. The company will ensure that we hire competent and well­
experienced hands to help us build an effective and profitable business. 
The Petitioner identified herself as the company's "Chief Executive Officer/Lead Financial Advisor," 
and stated that she intended to invest $160,000 of her personal funds "to finance a range of expenses 
incurred prior to the launch of the company," including start-up expenses, professional fees, website 
development, branding, marketing, advertising, rent, travel, and other expenses. She further stated 
that she was the company's sole owner and would offer "a broad spectrum of services tailored to aid 
small and medium-sized businesses and their financial needs, especially in qualifying business loans," 
as well as "financial health consulting" and "financial analysis and optimization." Lastly, the 
Petitioner indicated that to carry out the company's mission she would hire a diverse team of 
professionals, including a general manager, an administrative and human resources manager, five 
financial advisors, a financial risk manager, a business developer, an accountant, a legal secretary, and 
a front desk officer. 
2 The record reflects that in 2019 the Petitioner obtained the degree of Master of Business Administration in Financial 
management. 
2 
In denying the petition, the Director observed that both _______ and the business plan 
appeared to have been created after the petition filing date and explained, citing Matter ofIzummi, 22 
I&N Dec. 169 (Comm'r 1998) and Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971), that a 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing and may not make material changes to a petition 
that has already been filed to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. 
The Director determined that because at the time of filing the Petitioner did not provide a specific 
description of her proposed endeavor and its potential prospective impact, such as broader implications 
to the field of finance, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or substantial positive economic 
effects required under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework she did not show that her 
endeavor had national importance. The Director further found that the Petitioner also did not meet the 
remaining two prongs of Dhanasar and concluded that she therefore was not eligible for and did not 
merit a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The Petitioner then filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider the denial, asserting that the 
business plan she submitted in response to the RFE was meant only to give a detailed explanation of 
her future plans and there was "no trace of trying to make a material change" to the petition. To 
support her claim of the endeavor's national importance, the Petitioner submitted an undated letter 
from an individual who identified himself as al ITransformation & Change Program 
Manager, opining that "the services in the business plan of Iare of utmost importance 
to the success of clients, many of whom are foreign nationals seeking to navigate the intricate financial 
landscape of the United States," and that "the company can excel in its field and make valuable 
contributions to the U.S. economy." The Director dismissed the motion finding that this new evidence 
was insufficient to overcome the grounds for denial, as it did not show that the Petitioner was eligible 
for the benefit sought at the time of filing and that changing her proposed endeavor from working as 
an independent contractor to creating a financial management business employing other individuals 
was immaterial to her eligibility. The Director further determined that notwithstanding the Petitioner's 
ineligibility at the time of filing, she did not show that the benefits to the regional or national economy 
resulting from operating her own financial consulting company would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated under the Dahnasar first prong analysis. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that she did not make any material changes to the petition but merely 
provided more detailed information about her future plans, as requested in the RFE. She emphasizes 
that her proposed endeavor is prospective and points out that she only needs to demonstrate the 
endeavor's potential prospective impact. The Petitioner submits an online article about top jobs in the 
field of finance and accounting, references her RFE response, and asserts that her business plan 
explains in detail why her endeavor is in the U.S. national interest. We are not persuaded. 
The Petitioner's initial description of the proposed endeavor did not include any references to forming 
and operating her own financial consulting company; rather, the Petitioner indicated that she would 
work as afinancial manager for a yearly salary of $131,710 and stated generally that the United States 
would benefit from her contributions as afinancial manager. We therefore agree with the Director 
that the Petitioner's response to the RFE presented a new set of facts regarding her proposed endeavor, 
which is material to her eligibility for a national interest waiver. As stated, a petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A petition may not be approved at 
a future date after the petitioner may become eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter ofIzwnmi, 
3 
22 I&N Dec. at 175; Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Here, the Petitioner's plan to create her 
own company and act as either its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or a Lead Financial Advisor, which 
she proposed after filing date, cannot serve to retroactively establish her eligibility. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that by submitting the business plan in response to the RFE 
she merely intended to provide additional details about her proposed endeavor. However, in doing so 
the Petitioner substantially changed her original proposed endeavor - providing services as a financial 
manager who would "create financial reports, direct investment activities, and develop plans for long­
term financial goals of their organization" - to being an owner and CEO of her own financial 
consulting company who would employ other workers, including managers and financial advisors. 
The Petitioner does not address how her role and responsibilities as the company's CEO might be 
compatible with or encompass the work of a financial manager providing services to other 
organizations. The business plan similarly does not include any references to the Petitioner's 
employment as a financial manager. 
We cannot therefore conclude that the Petitioner's originally proposed endeavor did not materially 
change. If significant material changes are made to the initial benefit request, a petitioner must file a 
new petition 3 rather than seek approval of a petition filed without the initial evidence of eligibility 
required by applicable regulations and other USCIS instructions. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). For these 
reasons, the instant petition may not be approved. 
Moreover, even if the Petitioner had presented her plan to establish and operate a financial consulting 
company at the time of filing, we agree with the Director that she has not sufficiently demonstrated 
the national importance of this endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The Petitioner avers on appeal that she aims to stimulate job creation and boost the U.S. economy 
through the establishment of a finance consulting agency in New York, by providing employment to 
at least six skilled professionals specializing in financial advising, risk analysis, and accounting. She 
states that the agency will not only help those individuals secure stable jobs but will also deliver high­
quality services to clients across various industries. She adds that as a result the agency will have a 
positive impact on the U.S. economy beyond job creation, because by employing skilled professionals 
it will contribute to increasing tax revenues and overall economic growth. In support, she submits a 
2021 online article by the senior content marketing manager for N ortheastem University, 12 In­
Demand Finance and Accounting Careers, referencing the University faculty member's statement that 
"companies are racing to find new finance and accounting talent." The article contains a list of top 
finance and accounting jobs, including financial managers, advisors, and consultants, as well as 
financial, budget, and credit analysts and accountants. The Petitioner asserts that this evidence 
underscores the importance of equipping U.S. business employees with advanced knowledge and 
skills to effectively tap into this expanding sector and drive further economic growth. She states that 
many businesses often face challenges in handling complex accounting and financial management due 
to a lack of accountants with expertise, and her "proposed outsourcing financial consulting agency is 
a popular and practical solution for small businesses, particularly those with limited resources and 
expertise." 
3 USCIS records show that after the Director denied the instant petition, the Petitioner filed a second Form 1-140, Immigrant 
Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver), which is currently pending adjudication. 
4 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's statements. However, in evaluating whether an endeavor is of 
national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake," 
and evidence of its "potential prospective impact." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Accordingly, 
"we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and consider whether "[a]n undertaking 
may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within 
a particular field" or whether it "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
Here, although the Petitioner indicates that she intends to provide financial services to other 
businesses, the record as a whole remains insufficient to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor will 
extend beyond her company and its prospective clientele, such that it may impact the finance field 
more broadly and rise to the level of national importance. The Petitioner also has not shown how 
employing six professionals in New York, where she claims she will operate her company, establishes 
that her endeavor has a "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. Consequently, the Petitioner 
has not met her burden of proof to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar decision. 
Because she is ineligible for a national interest waiver on that basis alone, evaluating her eligibility 
under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar at this time would serve no purpose, and we 
reserve our opinion on those issues. 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 
alternate 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 that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal therefore will be dismissed for the reasons discussed above, with 
each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5