dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 29546983 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 1, 2024 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the finance industry, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. See 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. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the 
Act. 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the 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 nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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 EB-2 eligibility, 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 tenn "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 USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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). 
• 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 qualifies as a member of the professions with a bachelor's 
degree and progressive post-baccalaureate experience equivalent to a master's degree under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). 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. 
The Petitioner worked for banks in her native Brazil, first in "executive cash management" from 2004 
to 2011, and then as a "cash management products manager" from 2011 to 2018. In 2018, the 
Petitioner established a consulting company in Florida "with the objective of suppmiing Brazilian 
investors that are willing to invest in financial-related products in the United States." 
The Petitioner's initial submission included a business plan for her U.S. consulting company, 
indicating that the company "decided to establish strategic patinerships to have access to financial 
products and services that could be offered to its clients in Brazil." The Petitioner characterized those 
clients as "wealthy Brazilian investors." The business plan describes the company's "3 different 
streams ofrevenue generation": 
• The company owns automatic teller machines (ATMs), 2 and investors would receive a share 
of every transaction fee; 
• The company was in negotiations withe=] a financial services company, to offer financial 
products, such as annuities and insurance; and 
• "The company expects to bring up to 33% of its revenues from" "business consulting." 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had established the substantial merit of the proposed 
endeavor, but had not shown its national importance or met the other two prongs of the Dhanasar 
national interest framework. 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national imp01iance, 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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We look for broader implications. An 
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 impmiance. Id. at 889-890. 
The Petitioner stated that her work deals with "areas of substantial merit and national importance to 
the economy because of the ripple effects they generate upon commercial markets, investment 
2 Other materials in the record indicate that the Petitioner is also the commercial manager of the Florida company that 
supplies the ATMs. 
2 
activities, and to the United States' business and financial industries." The Petitioner asserted that her 
"proposed endeavor will contribute to tax revenue [and] generate jobs for U.S. workers," and that her 
knowledge of the Brazilian economy will benefit U.S. companies seeking to do business in Brazil. 
But the business plan in the record indicates that the purpose of her company is to facilitate Brazilian 
investment in the United States, rather than the other way around. 
The Petitioner submitted background infonnation about financial services. These materials relate to 
the Petitioner's intended field, but they do not relate specifically to her proposed endeavor. The 
Petitioner must establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor, rather than the 
overall importance of a particular industry, occupation, or field. The term "endeavor" is more specific 
than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation 
normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to unde1iake specifically within that 
occupation. See, generally, 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The Director requested further evidence to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
In response, the Petitioner asserted that she "will use her extensive financial tactics to expand the reach 
and scope of companies in the United States through her financial consulting firm ... , which will 
allow her to help improve U.S. business productivity by encouraging companies to maximize their 
economic capacities." But in the same letter, the Petitioner reiterated that her company's "primary 
objective ... is to support Brazilian investors interested in investing in financial products in the U.S. 
market." These claims are inconsistent as to whether the company would serve U.S. clients. 
In discussing "the significance and scope of [the] proposed endeavor," the Petitioner asserted that the 
Petitioner "works with multiple departments in their pursuit of analytical data," "leading, and 
motivating teams of workers." The Petitioner provided no further information or evidence relating to 
the "departments" and "teams of workers." Evidence in the record shows that her company has no 
staff other than herself and her spouse. 
The Petiti~ne itted a copy of a January 2023 "Solicitor's Agreement" between the Petitioner's 
company and engaging the Petitioner's company to "use its best efforts to solicit and refer ... 
clients to' The areemrt specifies that the Petitioner's company is "an independent party, and 
not ... an employee of' and that the Petitioner's company "will not render Services to Solicited 
Clients." This arrangement benefits LJby increasing its client base, and the resulting commissions 
benefit the Petitioner's company, but the Petitioner did not establish that her company's activities 
under the agreement have broader implications that demonstrate national impmiance. 
In February 2023, afterD and the Petitioner's company executed the above agreement, aD 
official stated his "intention to hire [the Petitioner] as a financial advisor." A March 2023 letter from 
an official of a bank inl I Florida, indicates that the Petitioner has been "employed as a Private 
Banking Account Officer at our organization" since June 2022. The Petitioner's employment with 
either of these entities would fall outside the proposed endeavor as initially described. 
The Petitioner's documented employment outside the proposed endeavor, several years after the 
Petitioner had started the company at the heart of that endeavor, does not establish the national 
importance of that endeavor. Rather, it calls into question the extent to which the Petitioner intends 
to pursue that endeavor. 
3 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from one of her company's clients. The owner of a claw machine 
company stated: "As we do not know the [U.S.] market solidly, we rely on the professional help of 
[the Petitioner's company] to guide us and financially position our company in the USA." This letter 
indicates that the Petitioner's company helped this customer, but it does not establish the broader 
implications of the proposed endeavor. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner had not established that the proposed 
endeavor would produce broader economic benefits beyond the services it would provide to a limited 
number of customers. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director "did not give due regard" 
to evidence such as the business plan and "Industry Reports and Articles, demonstrating the national 
importance of the Appellant's proposed endeavor." 
The reports and articles do not describe or address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. Rather, 
they concern more general subjects as the financial services industry and small businesses. As 
discussed above, the proposed endeavor is more specific than the overall field or occupation that the 
Petitioner intends to pursue, and therefore general information about broad subjects does not establish 
the national importance of her particular proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that her "proposed endeavor explicitly states its intention to promote 
economic development in various vacation destinations throughout the country." The Petitioner also 
asserts that she "will create value for U.S. organizations" and help them "to maintain successful 
business methodologies." These two divergent descriptions are both very different from earlier 
characterizations of the proposed endeavor as providing investment opportunities for Brazilian 
investors. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor involves the continued operation of a company that had already 
existed for more than three years when the Petitioner filed the petition in October 2021. Therefore, 
when considering the possible impact of the proposed endeavor, it is reasonable to examine what the 
record shows about the company's past performance. 
An organizational chart in the business plan showed the Petitioner as managing director; her spouse 
as consulting pa1iner; an administrative assistant; and three business developers. The Petitioner did 
not establish that this staffing amounts to economically significant job creation. Furthermore, except 
for the positions filled by the Petitioner and her spouse, all the listed positions were vacant throughout 
the company's first five years of operations. The business plan anticipated that hiring would begin in 
2022, but the company's 2022 tax return, submitted in response to the request for evidence, did not 
report any salaries paid that year. 
According to the business plan, the Petitioner's company had two sources of revenue from 2019 to 
when the plan was prepared inmid-2021. Its ATM business took in $50,043 in 2019; $58,062 in 2020; 
and $34,100 in the first part of 2021. Its separate work with unspecified "other clients" yielded 
$20,074 from one client in 2019; a "retainer" of$893 in 2020; and $32,456 from three clients in 2021. 
The business plan projected sharp increases in revenues in future years but did not cite specific 
evidence to support those projections. The company's tax returns for 2021 and 2022 allow us to 
4 
compare those projections to the Petitioner's actual gross revenues for those years. The business plan 
anticipated total revenues of $197,200 at the end of 2021, but that year's tax return shows $65,903, 
about one third of the projected amount. The 2022 tax return shows gross receipts of $58,776, about 
one fifth of the company's expected revenues of $285,325. 
The significant disparity between the projected and actual revenue figures raises fmiher doubts about 
the economic impact of the proposed endeavor. We also note that, while the business plan claimed 
that the company had already raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital, the tax returns show 
"total assets" of $2,607 in 2021 and $3,864 in 2022. This substantial discrepancy casts significant 
doubt on the accuracy of the business plan. Compounding this issue is the Petitioner's documented 
pursuit of employment outside that company, as discussed above. Unresolved material inconsistencies 
may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in suppmi of the 
requested immigration benefit. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
The information in the record indicates that the Petitioner's company has had a very limited economic 
impact, and does not indicate that the company has created any jobs for U.S. workers. The Petitioner 
did not document that her proposed endeavor had produced "ripple effects" beyond benefit to a small 
number of clients. The Petitioner did not explain how her company's activities would have a greater 
impact in the future. 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner has not met her burden of proof to show the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar national interest 
test. Detailed discussion of the remaining prongs cannot change the outcome of this appeal. 
Therefore, we reserve argument on the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 3 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as 
a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 ( 1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter olL-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). 
5