dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 08, 2024 In Re: 31112039 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial officer, 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 proposed endeavor was of national importance, that the Petitioner was well­
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that it would be beneficial to the United States to 
waive the requirements of a job offer and labor certification. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&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 
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. 
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 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 a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, 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. 
Regarding her claim of eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong, the Petitioner's business plan states that 
her proposed endeavor is to work as the chief financial officer of 
a consulting company providing "supply chain advisory services to mining, 
manufacturing, and oil and gas businesses throughout the U.S., also supplying these businesses with 
mining consumables and ground support items, safety materials, and more." 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a ]n undertaking 
may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within 
a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. To evaluate 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to 
evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of her work. In 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
1 See also 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
Here, the Petitioner has not described how her employment as the chief financial officer for her 
company will have a broader impact on the field of logistics. The Petitioner argues on appeal that her 
proposed work is nationally important because her proposed endeavor is "a multifaceted solution to 
national challenges" as it "addresses the shortage of financial managers, aligns with government 
initiatives, tackles supply chain issues, and emphasizes [ the Petitioner's] ability to contribute 
positively to the U.S. economy and national welfare." However, these generalized statements neglect 
to sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work as a financial officer for one company will have an 
impact extending beyond the company's consulting clients to the broader logistics and supply chain 
field on a nationally important level. 
The record presented does not provide sufficient support for her arguments either. 2 To demonstrate 
the national importance of her endeavor the Petitioner submitted informational articles, a personal 
statement, two opinion letters, and a business plan. The articles the Petitioner submitted discuss 
logistics, the supply chain, and the role of chief financial officers broadly. 3 Additionally, the Petitioner 
submitted various government reports on varied topics, such as the Chief Financial Officers Act of 
1990, the Federal Reserve's 2023 Annual Performance Plan, and initiatives to increase graduates in 
scientific and technical fields. These articles and reports are of little evidentiary value as they do not 
address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or how it would have broad implications in the 
logistics and supply chain field in a way that implicates national importance. 
Within the personal statement, the Petitioner claims that her endeavor will contribute to the "promotion 
of equitable economic growth, recovery, and the enhancement of wellbeing and the welfare on the 
general population." She claims that by serving as the chief financial officer for her company, she 
will "tend to the nation's crises and promote the public's welfare and quality of life" and "provide 
substantial positive economic effects to the United States." Contentions require support to underpin 
them, as assertions themselves do not constitute evidence. See, e.g., Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 
51 (BIA 1998) ("statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not 
entitled to any evidentiary weight"). In arguing that the endeavor is nationally important the 
Petitioner's statement focuses on her background, the job responsibilities she intends to perform, the 
importance of the logistics and supply chain field, and the general need for experienced financial 
executives in the country. The statement does not explain how the Petitioner's position as the chief 
financial officer for this company in particular will have an impact in a nationally important fashion. 
Moreover, as noted above, our focus is not the importance of the logistics, supply chain, or finance 
fields in which the Petitioner will work. Our analysis of national importance concentrates on the "the 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. 
The Petitioner also provided two opinion letters from Dr.I I and Dr. I I professors 
at and I respectively. As a matter of discretion, we may 
use opinion statements submitted by a petitioner as advisory. Matter ofCaron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). Still, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 We observe that several of the articles submitted were published after petition's filing. A petitioner must meet all the 
eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
3 
with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit 
sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. 
Here the advisory opinions are oflittle probative value. First, Dr. I I letter lacks explanation and 
analysis to show how the proposed endeavor is nationally important. The letter's discussion of 
national importance begins by explaining the company's functions and the Petitioner's role, and then 
provides an account of the importance of financial managers and the finance field. He then summarily 
concludes from the importance of these fields that her proposed endeavor is nationally important. This 
conclusion ignores the requirements of Dhanasar. It is not the importance of the field that determines 
an endeavor's national importance, but rather how the specific endeavor will impact the field on a 
level commensurate with national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Next, Dr. I I letter determines that the Petitioner will have "a cascading effect on the economy's 
growth," fulfill the country's need for knowledgeable workers, and "can potentially impact... the 
broader supply chain and logistics industry." His evaluation of national interest primarily focuses on 
a general explanation of the job responsibilities the Petitioner will undertake and the importance of 
good financial management and the logistics field. From there, he generalizes that as the Petitioner 
will be a good financial executive in an important field, she will have the various impacts noted above. 
This conclusion lacks sufficient analytical support, and it conflates the field's importance with the 
endeavor's importance. He neglects to explain how the specific proposed endeavor impacts the field 
beyond the individual companies the Petitioner would partner with or how her endeavor would have 
an economic impact on par with national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 890. Here, however, the business plan does not adequately support its projections of job and 
revenue creation. 
The Petitioner's business plan anticipates that the Petitioner's company will reach a total of 13 
employees in year five. It also projected generating $40,880 in net profit in year one, reaching 
$120,905 in year five. Nevertheless, the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or 
adequately clarify how these projections will be realized, nor does the record contain evidence to 
support the business plan's financial projections. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires 
that the evidence demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is probably true, where the determination of 
truth is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone 
but by its quality. See id. Here, the lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and 
probative value of the business plan. 
Moreover, even if we assumed all the projections in the business plan are accurate, the record lacks 
evidence demonstrating that the impact would be nationally important. The Petitioner's appeal brief 
states that the proposed endeavor is "linked with the field of supply chain management and that her 
work will positively impact American companies, which can ultimately benefit the national economy." 
4 
Yet the Petitioner did not provide documentation to support these statements that her work will result 
in substantial economic growth on the level of national importance. The record does not illustrate how 
creating 13 jobs and generating $120,905 in net profit by year five, as projected in the business plan, 
would have substantial positive economic effects on the level of national importance. The Petitioner 
must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has therefore not provided sufficient information and evidence to 
demonstrate the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 
Accordingly, for the reasons given above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor, and therefore does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's 
proposed endeavor is not nationally important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we 
find that the record does not establish that her proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond her 
partner companies to affect the region or nation more broadly . 26 I&N Dec. at 893. She has also not 
shown that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would 
reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
As the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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 find 
that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5