dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 04, 2024 In Re: 34999348 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial manager and an entrepreneur, 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 Petitioner qualified 
for the classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he 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 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. 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. 
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). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the 
job offer, and thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner 
demonstrates that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that on 
1 See 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) . 
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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen 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, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen 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 noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a financial manager and entrepreneur through 
his company, I I The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified as 
a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be 
determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a 
job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed 
below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer is warranted. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. The Director 
determined, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor's national 
importance, that he is well positioned to advance it, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United 
States to waive the job offer requirement. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director 
erroneously denied the petition. The Petitioner further contends that the Director failed to apply the 
proper standard and instead imposed a novel standard. While we do not discuss every piece of 
evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to provide financial advisory services through his company. 
The Petitioner states that he plans to provide guidance and business consulting services tailored to 
2 
small and medium-sized businesses. The record includes a business plan, recommendation letters, 
expert opinion letter, and industry reports and articles. 
The Petitioner states that his endeavor has the potential to significantly enhance economic productivity 
and competitiveness. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national 
importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the 
Petitioner's work. While the Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor will reduce unemployment, 
boost household incomes, and contribute to economic growth of the United States, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that his undertaking will have implications beyond his employees and customers 
that rise 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, the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to 
show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work as a financial manager and an entrepreneur offers 
broader implications in his field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive 
economic effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for the United States. For example, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's claimed intention to 
establish his proposed endeavor within a Small Business Administration (SBA) designated HUBZone 
inl IGeorgia. Since the Petitioner has not adequately established what parameters the SBA 
considers when it establishes HUBZones, we cannot evaluate whether these SBA-identified 
underutilized business zones are akin to the types of economically depressed areas within which 
creating employment could be a potential positive economic effect.2 More importantly, while the 
Petitioner asserts that by year five his endeavor will create 21 direct jobs and gamer total revenue of 
$3,320,000, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or 
adequately explain how these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized. Additionally, the 
Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner emphasizes the importance of the financial advisory services in strengthening the U.S. 
economy and argues that his proposed endeavor in this field holds both national and global 
significance. 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." Id. at 889. Although the Petitioner states 
his endeavor is of national importance, he has not, for example, sufficiently explained how he will 
2 The HUBZone program's goal is to promote business growth in underutilized business zones by awarding 3% of federal 
contract dollars to HUBZone-certified companies. That certification makes a business eligible to compete for certain 
federal contracts in the "set-aside" category. There are several required qualifications to participate in the program, but 
the most dispositive one for our analysis today is that the business seeking to participate in the HUBZone program must 
be at least 51 % owned by U.S. citizens, a community development corporation, an agricultural cooperative, an Alaska 
Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. While it is unknown and the record is silent as to 
whether any federal programs exist in the "set-aside" category for endeavors like the one the Petitioner proposes, it appears 
as though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be wholly owned and controlled by the Petitioner and that the 
Petitioner is not a U.S. citizen, a community development corporation, an agricultural cooperative, an Alaska Native 
corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. We therefore question whether the Petitioner would even 
be eligible to participate in the HUBZone program. 
3 
positively impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move the U.S. economy on 
a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. Without sufficient information or evidence 
regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record 
does not indicate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner highlights his experience in the financial industry and states that his expertise and 
approach to financial advisory services offer benefits that extend beyond individual clients to the 
broader economy. The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself, not the petitioner. Id. The 
Petitioner must establish that his specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar's first 
prong. Moreover, although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and 
achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong. The 
Petitioner's claimed extensive experiences are generally material to Dhanasar's second prong­
whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they are generally 
immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-91. 
Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the evidence he submitted in support of his 
petition, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently 
extend its benefits beyond his customers and the companies he elects to work with to enhance societal 
welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor 
has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such 
claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. 
See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first 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 also hereby reserve the appellate 
arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. See 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"); 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4