dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24567805 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 1, 2023 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chief financial officer, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Immigration and Nationality Act(the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this 
EB-2 immigrant classification. Seesection203(b)(2)(B)(i)oftheAct, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the 
required job offer , and thus of a labor certification , when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that the Petitioner 
had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would 
be in the national interest. 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasarstates that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacatedourpriorprecedent decision,MatteroJNew York State Dep 't oJTr ansp., 
22 I&NDec . 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the 
noncitizen 's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the 
noncitizen 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 off er and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national impmiance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
non citizen 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 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. 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 ce1iification. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job off er or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assumingthatotherqualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen'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 found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver 
of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer is warranted. 
Initially, the Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan to "replicate the success he has had, helping 
companies succeed and expand" and "to employ his own business and finance expertise to make his 
own U.S. company[] a big success." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the 
Petitioner asserted that the financial consulting company that he founded in the United States before 
filing the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, will provide "reliable financial advice, 
allowing US citizens and businesses to grow and make better financial decisions." The Petitioner 
further asse1ied that his financial consulting company will generate "direct and indirect jobs and 
contribut[ e] to the country by ensuring due compliance with financial obligations with the state and 
2 SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs. 
2 
support[] the training of new professionals in accounting and finance given my experience." The 
Petitioner also submitted a business plan for his financial consulting company, which in relevant part 
indicated that he planned to employ himself as chief financial officer and four financial analysts in the 
first year of operation, increasing to 23 financial analysts, plus the Petitioner, in the fifth year of 
operation. The business plan describes the Petitioner's financial consulting company as "Florida­
based" but it does not specify where the Petitioner intended to provide financial consulting services 
and where he intended to employ financial analysts. The business plan also states that employing 24 
workers in the professional, scientific, and technical services in Florida will "[g]enerate a final-demand 
impact in employment, equivalent to 416 jobs in Year 5 ," according to a RIMS II calculation. 
The Director found that the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor has national 
importance because the Petitioner "has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor that he proposes 
to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation." The Director noted that the record does not contain "relevant, 
probative and credible evidence to establish that the area where [the Petitioner] plans to conduct 
businesses is economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers in 
such an area, or that his endeavor would offer those regions or their population a substantial economic 
benefit through employment levels." 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that his business plan, letters of recommendation, generalized 
articles and reports, and opinion letters establish that the proposed endeavor of operating a financial 
consulting services company will have national importance. 
In determining national imp01iance, the relevant question is not the imp01iance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 
"specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 8 89. 
Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first 
prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improvedmanufacturingprocesses or medical advances" and endeavors that have broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
The record establishes that the proposed endeavor will benefit the Petitioner, as chief financial officer 
of his own company, and his company's clients; however, the record does not establish that the 
proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects that would show national 
importance, as contemplated by Dhanasar. Although the Petitioner's financial consulting company's 
business plan states that the company is "Florida-based," it does not establish where he intends to 
employ 23 financial analysts. The business plan identifies companies located in Florida and California 
for whom the company has provided financial services, but it does not elaborate on whether the 
financial analysts worked on-site at the client's locations or elsewhere. Furthermore, we note that 
publicly available information provided by the Florida Department of State indicates that the principal 
and mailing addresses of the Petitioner's financial consulting company match his residential address 
provided on the Form I-140, but the record does not clarify whether the Petitioner intends to employ 
23 financial analysts working in his residence. 
3 
Similarly, the business plan does not elaborate on the 416 indirect jobs a RIMS II calculation 
anticipates his financial consulting company will create, such as the types of jobs those would be and 
where they would be created. Without more detailed, credible evidence of the types ofjobs that would 
be created and where the jobs would be located, the record does not establish that employing 23 
financial analysts, in addition to the Petitioner employing himself, and indirectly creating 416 
unspecified jobs atunspecifiedlocations would show the type of substantial positive economic effects, 
and whether the effects would be particularly in an economically depressed area, contemplated by the 
firstDhanasarprong. See id. at 889-90. 
Next, the letters of support referenced on appeal by the Petitioner do not establish that the proposed 
endeavor has national importance. Two of the letters of recommendation are from clients of the 
Petitioner's financial consulting company. The letters opine that their business relationship "will give 
a positive boost to the business" and "result in a greater generation of income for the [ c ]ompany, with 
the consequent impacts that this means; such as the contribution to the economic growth of the United 
States, increased payments of Federal and State taxes, increased capacity to hire new workers with 
social impact in the communities," respectively. The letters of recommendation from the Petitioner's 
clients address the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals as contemplated by the second Dhanasar prong; however, other than generally stating that 
the proposed endeavor will improve their own income, they do not elaborate about substantial positive 
economic effects and where those effects would occur, contemplated by the firstDhanasarprong. See 
id. at 8 8 8-91. The other letter of recommendation referenced on appeal is from the Petitioner's former 
supervisor between 2008 and 2010. The Petitioner's former supervisor discusses the Petitioner's 
performance for his former employer during that time; however, he does not address the proposed 
endeavor and how it may have national importance. See id. at 889-90. 
The Petitioner's reliance on generalized articles and reports is misplaced. As noted above, in 
determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or 
profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 
"specific endeavorthatthe [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake." Id. at 8 89. Specifically, the Petitioner 
references an article published in 2018 titled "Over 30 Popular STEM (& STEAM) Careers and 10 
Unusual Ones, a 2012 report from the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 
and a 201 7 press release about a Presidential memo "to increase access to STEM and computer science 
education." Neither the article, the report, nor the press release discuss the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor and how it may have national importance. See id. 
The Petitioner submitted two opinion letters in response to the RFE; however, they do not establish 
that the proposed endeavor will have national importance. The opinion letters from an associate 
professor of finance atl I University and a professor of finance at I University 
repeat information provided in the Petitioner's business plan, summarize information about financial 
consulting in general, and assert that "the proposed endeavor will work in an area with substantial 
merit and national importance." However, as addressed above, in determining national importance, 
the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual 
will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the 
[noncitizen] proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. The opinion letters do not discuss how the proposed 
endeavor will have "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or broader 
4 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
We note that, on appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he "submitted an approximate of a three hundred 
(300) pages of documentation establishing a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) 
which was then summarily dismissed by the officer without providing a real analysis or reason." 
However, the Petitioner does not elaborate on how that evidence relates to the first Dhanasar prong 
and, furthermore, how it establishes that the proposed endeavor will have substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, contemplated by the first Dhanasar 
prong. See id. at 889-90. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We 
reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. 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 of L-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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5