dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 13, 2024 In Re: 31032121 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial analyst, 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 the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. In addition, the Director detennined that the Petitioner had not established that 
he merited a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The matter is now before us on appeal 
pursuant to 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 
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. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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 l&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. ELIGIBILITY FOR THE EB2 CLASSIFICATION 
The Petitioner 
bases his claim to eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, and does not claim to qualify as an individual of exceptional ability. In 
her decision, the Director concluded that while the Petitioner demonstrated that he possesses the 
foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree in business administration from a college or university in the 
United States, the evidence did not show that he also had the requisite five years of progressive, post­
degree experience in his specialty. Specifically, the Director listed the several reference letters 
submitted by the Petitioner, but determined that none provided the dates of his employment and a 
detailed account of the duties he performed for his previous employers. She also noted that a document 
titled "employment book," signed by an official of B-S- SA, did not sufficiently describe his duties in 
the positions listed. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points out that the "employment book" from B-S- SA provides a list of the 
Petitioner's job titles with this employer from 2007 to 2018, and that another document from an official 
of that company includes a list of four to six responsibilities for each of those positions. These 
documents, in addition to the initially submitted letter from B-S- SA which confirmed the specific 
beginning and end dates of his employment, are sufficient to show that the Petitioner possesses at least 
five years of progressive, post-baccalaureate experience in his specialty. We therefore withdraw the 
Director's determination on this issue, and conclude that the Petitioner has established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that he is eligible for the EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
To establish that they merit a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first describe the specific 
endeavor they propose to undertake in the United States. Here, the Petitioner initially stated that his 
proposed endeavor is to provide financial services to companies and individuals, which included 
advising in the areas of accounting, investing, insurance coverage, and securities. His proposed 
services also included producing financial reports, directing investment activities, and developing 
financial strategies, as well working with clients from Brazil "to facilitate cross-border transactions." 
The Petitioner further provided letters from companies to whom he had submitted job applications, 
including one from his previous employer in the United States, but did not elaborate with specific 
details regarding how he would proceed with his proposed endeavor. 
1 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). 
2 
In responding to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that his proposed 
endeavor was to "develop and innovate financial models" and "identify and improve new professional 
talents working in the financial sector." He indicated that the former would involve the analysis of 
financial data, reviewing information about prospective deals, and evaluating and analyzing a variety 
of financial areas such as expenditures, investment opportunities, and financial statements. As for the 
latter portion of his proposed endeavor, he stated his intention to contribute to the professional 
development of small and medium-sized business owners by providing guidance on financial data and 
credit issues. 2 
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. 
In her decision, the Director concluded that the Petitioner established that his proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, but went on to determine that the evidence did not show that it was of national 
importance. More specifically, she concluded that the materials submitted, including industry and 
government reports concerning the occupation of financial analyst and trends within that field, did not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would have broader implications within 
the field, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or substantial positive economic effects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner initially asserts that the Director did not consider the evidence submitted in 
response to the RFE, citing the similarity in the language of that correspondence to the Director's 
decision. While he states that this includes nine pieces of evidence, he does not specifically identify 
any piece of evidence or how that evidence supports the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also cites to Buletini v. INS, 850 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994) in support of this 
assertion. The court in Buletini, however, did not reject the concept of examining the quality of the 
evidence presented to determine whether it establishes a petitioner's eligibility, nor does the Buletini 
decision suggest that USCIS abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for 
each piece of evidence. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made 
adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor 
is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 
707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir.1992); see also 
Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. US. INS, 984 F.2d 
105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). 
Here, the evidence referred to is accurately if summarily described by the Director in her decision, and 
as she noted provides only general information regarding financial analysts and the industry in which 
2 The brief submitted on appeal describes the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as creating and directing a company offering 
digital marketing services. As this appears to be an error in drafting by the Petitioner's representative, we will focus our 
analysis on the proposed endeavor as described above. 
3 
they work. For example, the Petitioner submitted a chapter on financial analysts from the 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, which is published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics and 
is available on the agency's website. While this evidence describes the usual duties, training and 
education requirements for entry, and the job outlook for this occupation, these descriptions do not 
focus on the Petitioner's specific endeavor, which is to provide financial services to the clients of his 
employer. Similarly, an article from the website www.intuit.com discusses the financial illiteracy of 
small business owners, but primarily markets a software tool and does not address the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor . In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance 
of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual proposes to engage; instead we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 889. We therefore agree with the Director's conclusion that the government and industry reports 
and articles submitted with the Petitioner's initial submission and his response to the Director's RFE 
do not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
In addition, the Petitioner refers to the assertions he made in his initial statement of his proposed 
endeavor regarding the potential impacts of his endeavor, which included facilitating cross-border 
transactions between the U.S. and Brazil, creating new jobs, and increasing the financial profits of 
individuals and companies in the U.S. He asserts on appeal that the printout from the website of the 
United States Small Business Administration (SBA), which very briefly describes the agency's 
mission, mentions the same type of services that he proposes to provide, apparently referring to the 
agency's provision of "counseling, capital, and contracting expertise." But he does not articulate how 
this evidence shows that his specific endeavor as a financial advisor, developing financial models and 
providing financial guidance to small business owners, would have the required broader implications 
for the financial services industry or the U.S. economy. Although he later asserts that this and other 
reports and articles in the record, including a mentorship program for small businesses sponsored by 
the SBA, "illustrate the impact of the endeavor on a matter considered nationally important," this 
evidence does not include any information regarding the nature of the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor or its impact. An endeavor "that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has 
other substantial positive economic effects" may have national importance, but the Petitioner has not 
submitted evidence describing the significance of his specific endeavor's potential for job creation or 
to have positive economic effects. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner also submitted an expert opinion letter from a professor of business at a U.S. university 
who offers his thoughts on the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. In discussing the 
national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the professor focuses entirely on economic 
conditions in Brazil and its trade relationship with the U.S., concluding that the Petitioner's "expertise 
in this area is of substantial merit and national importance for U.S. companies doing business or 
planning to do business in Brazil." We first note that the issue of the Petitioner's expertise is a relevant 
factor to be considered in the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, but is not 
considered when evaluating the national importance of his proposed endeavor in the first prong. In 
addition, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient detail in his initial filing regarding his proposal to 
"facilitate cross-border transactions," and did not mention this aspect of his endeavor at all when 
responding to the Director's RFE. Accordingly this evidence is of minimal evidentiary value in 
determining the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
4 
We finally note that the Petitioner concedes that the recommendation letters written by his former 
employers and colleagues do not address the national importance of his proposed endeavor, but instead 
were submitted in support of his positioning to advance his proposed endeavor. 
Per the above discussion, the Petitioner has not established that his proposal to provide financial 
services to individuals and small businesses is of national importance, and he therefore does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. A petitioner must meet all three prongs of the 
framework in order to establish their eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified basis 
for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the 
Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the second and third prongs of the 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 ofL-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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5