dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 30, 2024 In Re: 30338017 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
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, 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 the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner qualified for a 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 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 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. 
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." Id. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCTS 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined on appeal 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 stated that he intended to operate a company providing financial consulting services to 
small- and medium-sized businesses in the United States. Although the Director determined that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit, the Director concluded the record did not 
establish that the endeavor is of national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates arguments 
for the national importance of his endeavor and cites evidence previously included in the record. The 
Petitioner asserts that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) "erroneously denied" the 
petition and "imposed novel substantive and evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the 
regulations." The Petitioner, however, does not identify any unusual requirements imposed, nor does 
he specify how the Director erred or what factors in the decision were erroneous.2 This alone is 
grounds for dismissal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed below, we 
agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance 
of his endeavor in order to establish his eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
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. 
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 
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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 An appeal must specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
2 
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. Further, to 
evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we 
look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. 
The Petitioner provided industry reports and articles discussing the Brazil-US. Bilateral Investment 
Map, cross-border investments, and the impact of the pandemic on the economy. However, this 
material does not provide sufficient insight into the Petitioner's business plans regarding his proposed 
financial consultancy services company or how this specific endeavor would have a potential 
prospective impact of national importance. 
The Petitioner also submitted letters of recommendation discussing his professionalism and expertise. 
We note that evidence of the Petitioner's job experience and performance generally relates not to the 
national importance of an endeavor, as discussed in the first prong of Matter ofDhanasar, but to the 
second. 3 As such, the letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner further provided a professional plan stating the following ( quoted as written): 
I intend to perform in the American market as a Financial Manager, providing 
financial consulting services to American companies in various sectors, through my 
own consulting company, in order to improve the global results of small and 
medium-sized companies, contributing to the healthy development of their business. 
In this way, I can contribute to these companies so they may reduce their costs, avoid 
bankruptcy, grow with planning and strategy, create more jobs, consequently 
paying more taxes, impacting not only the local economy but also the country's as a 
whole. In addition, I also intend to provide financial consulting services to Brazilian 
and Latin American companies that are expanding their activities to the 
American market, contributing to encourage foreign investment to the country, 
which will impact the American economy through generation of new jobs and tax 
collection, among others. 
With all the experience I have acquired over the years in the financial management of 
several companies, I will offer the supervision of the company's daily financial 
operations, developing and implementing short, medium, and long-term business 
strategies and procedures, studying financial and market opportunities, making 
diagnoses and offering more assertive solutions, optimizing processes and enabling 
reports that speed up and facilitate accurate decision -making, avoiding losses and 
3 Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, determinations 
concerning the second and third prongs are unnecessary to the ultimate decision; therefore, they will be reserved in this 
decision. 
3 
optimizing operating and financial results, which will consequently favor the growth 
and expansion of the company, contributing to the economy of the United States. 
The Petitioner's professional plan asserts that he intends to help companies manage their businesses 
more efficiently, to generate foreign investment, and to expand the market of Latin American 
businesses in the United States. The plan contemplates the creation of "direct and indirect jobs for 
professionals such as account executives, accountants, market intelligence analysts, accountants, 
lawyers and paralegals, as well as administrative assistants." A business plan submitted in response 
to a request for evidence uses similarly vague language to outline the Petitioner's intentions; the 
Petitioner stated the following in his business plan (quoted as written): 
The Company's mission will be to provide specialized financial management services 
to cover the needs of American SME [ small- and medium-sized enterprise] companies 
and entrepreneurs in today's business environment, primarily by providing financial 
analysis and management services, which could provide significant improvements and 
higher performance in the financial optimization of companies and helping them to 
effectively face uncertainties and pave the way to future prosperity. 
The Petitioner, however, did not specifically describe in his professional or business plan how he 
would undertake an endeavor of the scale that would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. For instance, in his professional plan, the Petitioner 
cited employment projection data for financial managers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and 
asserted that "there is a national urgency of qualified professionals to meet the indicated demand." 
His proposed remedy was to use his "extensive experience" to "train and qualify new professionals 
in finance, sharing [his] knowledge acquired over these years, which will favor the economy in the 
United States since these new professionals can also help other companies in these companies' 
financial management and strategic growth" ( emphasis in the original). Again, the Petitioner did not 
specify how he would accomplish training on a scale that would impact the job market at a national 
level. Notably, 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. Id. at 893 
In addition, while the business plan offers an overview of the services the Petitioner intended to 
provide, the asserted national importance of his proposed endeavor relies on the overall importance of 
responsible financial management in optimizing business performance. The Petitioner did not provide 
independent evidence or otherwise explain how his company would have a prospective national impact 
on the field of financial management or an economy of any scale. For example, the business plan 
generally highlights the potential benefits of cross-border investment; the Petitioner, however, did not 
explain how he would facilitate such investments. As another example, the business plan anticipates 
hiring 16 individuals by the conclusion of its fifth year of operation ( a number that includes positions 
for himself and his spouse) while generating $2,009,000 in revenue. The Petitioner did not, however, 
provide sufficient basis for these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence 
sufficient to demonstrate that it is likely the company will have a positive national economic impact 
or a national prospective impact within the field. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
4 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the nation. Specifically, he 
has not shown that his business stands to provide substantial economic benefits to any particular 
locality or to the United States overall. While the business plan vaguely explained that his company's 
services would benefit the U.S. economy because it would help businesses succeed through 
management efficiencies and foreign investments, these asserted national impacts were not 
sufficiently supported by objective evidence related to his specific proposed endeavor. It is not clear 
how a business of the size and scope described in the business plan would significantly impact a certain 
region in which his employees or clients are located. The Petitioner has not provided evidence to 
show that he would employ a significant population of workers in a particular region, nor has he shown 
that his proposed endeavor would offer a region or its population substantial economic benefits 
through employment levels, business activity, or tax revenue. As such, the business plan does not 
demonstrate that the prospective benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the 
Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated 
by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Because 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 agencies 
are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate 
decision); 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 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor has national importance. As the 
Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not 
established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5