dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 26375303 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 20, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial analyst and manager, seeks classification as an individual of exceptional 
ability in the sciences, arts or business. 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. § l 153(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 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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as a 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 offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
We first note that, in the decision, the Director did not address whether the Petitioner qualifies for 
second-preference classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 
as an individual of exceptional ability. See section 203(b )(2) of the Act. Similarly, the Director 
addressed evidence relating to second-preference classification as an individual of exceptional ability 
in a request for evidence (RFE); however, the Director did not state whether the Petitioner qualifies as 
such. Because we nevertheless find that the record does not establish that a waiver of the requirement 
of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest, we reserve our opinion 
regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies second-preference eligibility criteria. See id.; see also 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"); 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). 
Initially, the Petitioner described the endeavor as a "plan to continue [her] studies and complete the 
remaining 2 modules to obtain a CGMA (Chartered Global Management Accountant) degree and 
become a full member of [the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA)]." The 
Petitioner added, "I dream of applying my experience, skills, and knowledge for the benefit of the 
United States, because [f]inancial [a]nalysis and [m]anagement is exactly what I do the best." The 
Petitioner further asserted, "I am confident that I can make a huge contribution to the development of 
this sector of the economy both within one company and for the United States as a whole." However, 
the Petitioner did not elaborate on what her specific endeavor would entail and how she would "make 
a huge contribution to the development of this sector of the economy," either directly for her 
unspecified employer or for the United States as a whole. 
In an RFE, the Director acknowledged that "the [P]etitioner submitted a statement, but the statement 
failed to provide specific insight as to what she intends to do as a financial analyst and manager." The 
Director informed the Petitioner that the record does not establish that the Petitioner satisfies any of 
the Dhanasar prongs without first establishing what the proposed endeavor would entail, and the 
Director requested additional evidence to establish eligibility. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted various articles that she asserted relate to 
"a shortage of skilled professionals in finance" in the United States. The Petitioner also stated, for the 
first time, that she "plans to register her own company ... dedicated to providing consulting services 
to various entities that operate in the United States financial market and help them achieve continuous 
improvements in reporting and tracking methodologies, driving their sustainable growth." The 
2 
Petitioner further asserted that "[h]]er company will target clients throughout the United States. She 
expects to create job opportunities in this country." 
A petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 
8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility 
or after a petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'! Comm'r 1971). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an 
effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izwnmi, 22 I&N 
Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
The Petitioner did not initially state that her proposed endeavor would entail registering her own 
company, providing consulting services to multiple companies, or creating job opportunities. On the 
contrary, as noted above, the Petitioner initially described her proposed endeavor as obtaining a 
CGMA degree, becoming a full member of CIMA, and working in finance to contribute to "the 
development of this sector of the economy within one company and for the United States as a whole" 
( emphasis added). Therefore, the Petitioner's assertions in response to the RFE that she would register 
her own company, provide consulting services to multiple companies, and create jobs present a new 
set of facts. Moreover, the new set of facts is material to the first Dhanasar prong because they relate 
to whether the specific endeavor may have broader implications. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-
90. Because the new set of facts presented in response to the RFE constitute a material change to the 
petition, they cannot and do not establish eligibility, and we need not address them further. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 
176. 
The Director stated that "although the [P]etitioner highlights that there is an occupational shortage in 
the United States, such a shortage does not, by itself, establish that her work stands to impact the 
broader field or otherwise have implications rising to the level of national importance." The Director 
further observed that "the [P]etitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to 
undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation." The Director ultimately concluded that "the [P]etitioner's proposed 
work does not meet the national importance part of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework." We 
note, however, that the Director did not determine whether the proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats the new set of facts presented in response to the RFE, which cannot 
and do not establish eligibility as discussed above. The Petitioner also asserts that the Director "erred 
by finding that [she] has not shown sufficient evidence she will impact her field and create jobs." To 
support her assertion, the Petitioner references two em lo ment confirmation letters in the record, one 
from the general director of the Association of and one from the 
senior cluster revenue manager at _____ Specifically, the Petitioner notes that the former 
asserts the Petitioner "will make a 'tremendous contribution' to the entire financial services industry" 
and that the latter "attested that [the Petitioner] restructured their company in a way that increased 
profits by 15 percent." 
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 
3 
"specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
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 improved manufacturing processes 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 Petitioner's reliance on appeal on the two referenced employment confirmation letters in the 
context of the first Dhanasar prong is misplaced. Although the letters confirm that the Petitioner 
worked for the respective employers and they summarize her duties in her respective roles, neither 
letter addresses the "specific endeavor [she] proposes to undertake." See id. at 889. More specifically, 
neither employment confirmation letter conveys an understanding of how the Petitioner's plan to 
obtain a CGMA degree, become a full member of CIMA, and work in finance to contribute to "the 
development of this sector of the economy within one company and for the United States as a whole" 
will have "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from 
certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." See id. at 889-90. Likewise, neither 
letter establishes how the proposed endeavor may have broader implications, such as "significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." Id. Instead, the letters focus on the Petitioner's past performance and 
how that benefited their own respective companies at that time. Although the Petitioner's prior work 
experience is material to the second Dhanasar prong, whether she is well-positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor, it is not material to the first Dhanasar prong, whether the specific, prospective 
endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-91. 
Even if the new set of facts that the Petitioner presented in response to the Director's RFE could 
establish eligibility-which it cannot and does not for the reasons discussed above-the Petitioner's 
altered description of the proposed endeavor does not provide sufficient information to determine 
whether it may have national importance. For example, although the Petitioner asserted that she would 
"register her own company . . . dedicated to providing consulting services to various entities that 
operate in the United States financial market" and that she "expects to create job opportunities in this 
country," she did not provide further details about where the company would operate, the types of jobs 
she would create, the number of employees she would hire, where the employees would work, and 
other details that address whether the endeavor may 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. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. 
We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. 
See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. As noted above, 
we also reserve our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the Petitioner is eligible for 
second-preference classification. See id. Furthermore, because we find that the record does not 
establish the proposed endeavor has national importance, we reserve our opinion regarding whether it 
establishes the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. See id. 
4 
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