dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 14908815 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: m L Y 1, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial manager, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 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 Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but had not established 
that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts he is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 
2010). Upon de nova 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. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national 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 
foreign national 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
1 In announcing this new framework. we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation. 22 T&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01). 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate 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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The Director also determined that the Petitioner had established that the proposed endeavor met 
the substantial merit portion of the first prong set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework, but not the 
national importance portion or the remaining two prongs. The Director's decision then discussed the 
deficiencies in the submitted evidence and provided a well-reasoned explanation for his conclusions. 
As an initial matter, we agree with the Petitioner that the Director's decision incorrectly stated in one 
sentence that his field was "law enforcement and criminal justice." However, contrary to the 
Petitioner's claims on appeal, it is clear from the decision that the Director's conclusions were based 
on the Petitioner's stated field and endeavor. 
We also note that the Petitioner's initial "Professional Plan & Statement" stated that his "career plan 
in the United States is to continue working as a Financial Manager, to advise U.S. companies and 
businesses on how to grow successfully through proper financial planning and investing, in order to 
meet their goals and remain profitable." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), 
the Petitioner shifted his focus to cryptocurrency and added that, in addition to his intention "to serve 
as a Financial Manager for any U.S. institution, organization, or company in need of his specialized 
knowledge," he "also intend[s] to open an Asset Management company, specializing m 
cryptocurrency arbitrage operations, operating in the North and Latin American markets." 
The purpose of the RFE is to elicit farther information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit 
sought has been established. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). The information provided by the Petitioner in 
his response to the Director's RFE added an additional endeavor. Eligibility for a requested 
immigration benefit must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b )(1 ), (12); Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future date 
after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izwnmi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 17 5 
(Comm 'r 1998). That decision, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), farther 
provides that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a 
petition." Id. at 176. Therefore, our analysis will be limited to the Petitioner's role as a financial 
manager, the endeavor described in the initial petition. 
In light of the above, and upon consideration of the entire record, including the arguments made on 
appeal, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. 4 See Matter of P. 
Singh, Attorney, 26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
1994); see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the 
facts and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly 
resolved by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" 
provided the tribunal 's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
With regard to the remaining portion of the first prong , 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. We further indicated 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. 
On appeal , rather than providing additional evidence to overcome the Director's conclusions , the 
Petitioner again repeatedly relies on his experience and his prior career accomplishments in Brazil to 
establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. However, the Petitioner's expertise and 
record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar' s second prong, which 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of his proposed work. 
The Petitioner makes a number of general claims , such as his "proposed endeavor is unquestionably 
of national importance, given the significant economic impact of the financial services industry in the 
United States, as well as globally," and references submitted reports and articles. As previously stated , 
however, 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, not the 
importance or economic benefits of his industry. 
The Petitioner also generally asserts that his endeavor "will have broad implications in the business 
field" and "will affect the whole business and financial ecosystem ," but does not offer sufficient 
evidence to demon strate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of 
national importance. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he 
proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial 
positive economic effects for our nation . Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the record does not show that 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. 
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. Here, we find 
the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
his employer(s) and clients to impact the industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. Nor has he shown that the particular work he proposes to undertake offers original 
innovations that contribute to advancements in finance or otherwise has broader implicat ions for his 
4 
field. For all these reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the fust prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding the remaining issues. 
See INS v. Bagama sbad, 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"); see also Matt er 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 fust prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
he has not established that he is eligible for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5