dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 04, 2024 In Re: 31843647 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur and a financial manager, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification (EB-2) 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 immigrant 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 the underlying visa classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 1 but 
that he did not establish 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 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 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest 
1 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has a foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor 's degree in business administration 
from _________ in Colombia and five years of progressive experience in the field. 
waiver pet1t10ns. 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 the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
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. Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner intends to operate a business, _____________ in New Jersey and 
provide financial advice and business formation trainings to entrepreneurs and microentrepreneurs, 
especially to the women heads of household. The Director concluded that the Petitioner's endeavor 
has substantial merit but not national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar' s analytical 
framework. 3 
Upon review of the entire record, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter ofBurbano, 
20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting 
that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every 
other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining 
eight U.S. Courts of Appeals in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision 
below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). As discussed below, the 
Director's decision summarized the pertinent evidence and analyzed why the Petitioner's endeavor 
did not meet the national importance element in Dhanasar. 
The Petitioner claimed that his endeavor would contribute to the overall economic development in the 
United States and has "the potential to catalyze economic expansion by empowering 
microentrepreneurs and facilitating the efficient allocation of capital in the post-pandemic reality." 
However, after evaluating and analyzing the evidence, such as the Petitioner's personal statements, 
expert opinion letters, and various articles and reports discussing the importance of small and medium 
businesses and women and youth in entrepreneurship, the Director concluded that the record does not 
corroborate the Petitioner's claims. Specifically, the Petitioner's personal statements and the expert 
2 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 is discretionary 
in nature). 
3 The Director fm1her concluded that the Petitioner is not well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under the 
second prong, and the evidence does not support that the endeavor, on the balance, would be beneficial to the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, under the third prong. 
2 
opinion do not meaningfully analyze how his proposed endeavor meets the national importance as 
defined in Dhanasar. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the 
field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) 
(holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
The Director also noted that the industry related articles and government initiatives on small 
businesses and entrepreneurship provide background information on the field of finance and speculate 
on the industry's effect on the American economy in general but do not discuss the Petitioner's specific 
endeavor and its impact with persuasive details. Merely working in an important field is insufficient 
to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor; instead, we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director further evaluated the Petitioner's business plan but determined that the plan does not 
provide sufficient basis as to how the projected hiring of 15 foll-time employees and 15 independent 
contractors in five years demonstrate "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects" for any region or the nation. Id. at 890. Additionally, the 
Petitioner did not provide corroborating information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. 
economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his activities, aside from the claims made in 
the business plan. The Petitioner must submit relevant, probative, and credible evidence to establish 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor. See Matter o/Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The 
Director also noted that the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner will pursue his endeavor in 
an economically depressed area. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally summarizes and reiterates the evidence previously submitted on 
record, such as benefits of his profession and importance of the entrepreneurship and small businesses 
startups, and the claimed economic impacts of his proposed business as provided in his business plan. 
The Petitioner contends that the Director failed to consider the totality of the evidence provided and 
misapplied Dhanasar. However, the Petitioner does not provide any new evidence or compelling 
arguments that overcome the Director's determination. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director misapplied Dhanasar by discussing 
recommendation letters while evaluating national importance under the first prong. Although we 
agree that reference letters are more "suited for the well-positioned criterion" under the second prong, 
the Petitioner has not shown that any precedent law or regulations prohibit the Director from 
considering recommendation letters in the first prong. Moreover, the Director appropriately reviewed 
the recommendation letters in assessing whether the endeavor has national importance as the other 
evidence in the record did not provide specific information about the endeavor and did not corroborate 
the Petitioner's claims.4 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Director made contradictory statements by first acknowledging that 
the Petitioner "provided numerous government initiatives and regulations that illustrate the impact of 
the endeavor on a matter considered nationally important" but later stating that the evidence submitted 
4 The Director ultimately concluded that the recommendation letters from the Petitioner's former colleagues did not address 
the endeavor's specific impact or special methodologies attributable to the Petitioner in the field of finance or 
entrepreneurship. 
3 
"does not show specific government interest." We disagree with the Petitioner's interpretation of the 
Director's statements. The Director first acknowledged that the reports and articles on government 
initiatives established importance of the finance industry and entrepreneurship in general and 
substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. However, the Director properly noted the deficiency in 
the record documenting the interest of the federal government or other relevant national agencies in 
the Petitioner's specific proposal to support the claims of national importance. In Dhanasar, we gave 
significant weight to "probative expert letters from individuals holding senior positions in academia, 
government, and industry that describe the importance of hypersonic propulsion research as it relates 
to U.S. strategic interests" and "detailed expert letters describing U.S. Government interest" in Dr. 
Dhanasar's specific research. Id. at 892. Here, the Petitioner has not provided similar evidence, such 
as the type of expert opinion evidence or letters from government entities detailing how his specific 
endeavor impacts a matter that is a subject of national initiatives. None of the articles and reports 
specifically mention the Petitioner's endeavor or discuss the government's interest in promoting the 
use of the Petitioner's innovation or solutions. 
Lastly, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not evaluate the totality of the evidence and that 
there is "ample evidence" in the record demonstrating national importance of the endeavor by the 
preponderance of evidence standard. The Petitioner cites to Buletini v. INS, 850 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. 
Mich. 1994) (stating that failure to consider all of the relevant evidence submitted by a plaintiff 
constitutes an abuse of discretion). However, the court in Buletini did not reject the concept of 
examining the quality of the evidence presented to determine whether it establishes a petitioner's 
eligibility nor does it suggest that USCTS abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized 
analysis for each piece of evidence.5 Therefore, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's claim that 
the Director ignored the evidence on record. To determine whether a petitioner has met his burden 
under the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including 
relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376; 
Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, the Director properly weighed various 
evidence to evaluate whether the Petitioner had demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework but determined that the evidence overall 
lacked probative value. 
In sum, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not provided evidence to support that his 
endeavor as a financial manager or a business owner would have broader implications beyond his 
clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. Therefore, the petition will remain denied and further analysis of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 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). 
5 When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required 
to specifically address each claim a petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the 
petitioner presents. Xiao Ji Chen v. US. Dep 't ofJustice, 471 F .3d 315, 341 (2d Cir. 2006) ( citing Morales v. INS, 208 
F.3d 323,328 (1st Cir. 2000)). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not demonstrated eligibility for 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