dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25819908 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 03, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , a financial executive, 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. § l 153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer , and thus of the labor certification , would be in the 
national intere st. We dismis sed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on a 
motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter of Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010) . Upon review , we will grant the motion 
to reopen and dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2) . We do not require the evidence of a "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or 
undiscoverable. Instead , "new facts" are facts that are relevant to the issue(s) raised on motion and 
that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the original petition . 
Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute 
"new facts." Here , the Petitioner presents new facts supported by documentary evidence. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Procedural History 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree and we agreed on appeal. 1 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner 
qualifies for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
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 I&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 2, 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. 
In addition to his academic background in accounting, the Petitioner asserts that he has more than 25 
years of experience as a financial executive for large multinational companies. He also states that he 
served as president of a pension institute and credit union, and of the finance committee of the 
American Chamber of Commerce in Brazil. In addition, he served as vice president of 
industrial companies for the Brazilia I which named him Financial 
Executive of the Year in 2013. 
The Petitioner initially stated that he intends to "continue using [his] skills, expertise, and knowledge 
to work within the financial field in the United States." The Director determined that the Petitioner 
did not sufficiently describe his proposed endeavor and issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing 
the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish his eligibility for 
the national interest waiver. Upon review of the Petitioner's response to the RFE, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain his specific undertaking in the United States 
so that USCIS was precluded from determining whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit 
and national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The Director also 
concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that he was well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor or 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again stated that he intends to serve as a financial executive in the United 
States, "providing expert services to any company and helping them to be better informed, organized, 
1 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in accounting from Brazil 
earned in 2000, followed by more than five years of progressive experience as a financial executive. See 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
2 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). 
2 
and financially structured." He further described his proposed duties as a financial executive for a 
U.S. company, including: 
• Support innovation and new business models. 
• Develop and deliver agile strategy. 
• Drive sustained, long-term growth. 
• Manage cash management. 
• Handle any and all merger and acquisitions. 
In our appellate decision, we determined that the Petitioner sufficiently described his proposed 
endeavor and that it has substantial merit. However, we concluded that the Petitioner did not establish 
that his proposed endeavor has national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar analysis. 
On motion, the Petitioner states that he provides "new facts and evidence related to [his] endeavor and 
the prospective economic benefits to the U.S. economy. 3 He describes his proposed endeavor as 
follows: 
My specific proposed endeavor in the United States is to provide strategic financial 
advice, feasibility analysis, and implementation actions for planning, directing, and 
coordinating investments in small, medium, and large industrial businesses. These 
investments focus on building or expanding factories, warehouses, distribution centers, 
research and development centers, and correlated systems and technologies. 
My proposed endeavor also focuses on improving efficiency and resiliency in logistics, 
supply chain, and manufacturing operations, generating direct and indirect jobs, higher 
sales, profitability, and cash flow. 
B. 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. 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
As noted above, in our previous appeal decision we concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
has substantial merit. We further concluded that the Petitioner did not offer sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. We specifically noted that he had not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes 
to undertake as a financial executive has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise 
3 We note that the purpose of a RFE is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought 
has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8),(12). Despite having the opportunity, 
the Petitioner did not submit this evidence in response to the Director's RFE or on appeal. Rather, he states on motion, 
"[M]y counsel focused my application on my occupation, profession, and field. Despite these being important factors ... 
there should have been more focus on describing my specific endeavor and the potential prospective benefits for the U.S. 
economy." 
3 
offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. We also noted that the record did not show 
that the Petitioner's role as a financial executive stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer( s) 
to impact the industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Nor had he 
shown that the particular work he proposes to undertake offers original innovations that contribute to 
advancements in finance or otherwise has broader implications for his field. 
With respect to national importance, the Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor will support the 
"reindustrialization process" in the United States, which will in tum stabilize supply chains. He states 
that his proposed endeavor will result in direct and indirect job creation, allowing for a significant 
economic impact. The Petitioner asserts that, in providing business strategic financial advice and 
preparing feasibility studies, he will provide U.S. businesses with successful investment strategies. 
He cites to his extensive career as a financial executive and the interest he has received from potential 
employers in the United States, as well as the demand for his services in the U.S. labor market. 
In support of his assertions, the Petitioner submits new documentary evidence. This includes articles 
from local internet news sites about investments made by the Petitioner's former employers based 
upon the Petitioner's financial advice, and a new recommendation letter. The Petitioner also submits 
a 2022 employment outlook survey analyzing talent shortages in the United States, the February 24, 
2021 Executive Order on America's Supply Chains, and a June 6, 2022 "Fact Sheet" on domestic 
clean energy manufacturing. The employment survey, the Executive Order, and the fact sheet are all 
dated after the petition's filing in August 2020. However, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the 
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1971). 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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 Id. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for 
broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]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. 
Although sound financial management is important and supply chain resilience may be the subject of 
national initiatives, this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor. When 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 id. at 889. Here, much of 
the Petitioner's evidence relates to the importance of strategic financial planning, rather than his 
specific proposed endeavor. Even considering the articles, reports, and statistics collectively and in 
the totality of circumstances, we conclude that they do not support a finding that his specific proposed 
endeavor has national importance. 
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. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable financial management and investment 
4 
planning services for a U.S. company and the benefits he anticipates from his work, we agree with our 
prior decision that these are general claims that are not supported by sufficient information and 
evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of 
national importance. 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 conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond his potential employer to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
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. Further analysis of his eligibility under the third 
prong outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 4 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
4 Because we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required 
by the first Dhanasar prong, which is dispositive of the appeal, it is unnecessary to analyze any remaining independent 
grounds. Therefore, we decline to reach but hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the second 
and third Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding it unnecessary to analyze additional 
grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the appeal); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5