dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 31. 2025 In Re: 36184449 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial analyst, 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 Nebraska 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 she 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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. 
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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
1 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has a foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in finance from __ 
in Kazakhstan and five years of progressive experience in the field. 
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. 
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, a financial analyst and accountant, intends to operate a financial consulting business, 
offering "financial advisory, accounting and tax assistance 
services, as well as business courses with a special focus on immigrants" in California. The Petitioner 
claimed that her business would "help its clients do financial planning, manage debt, treat taxes and 
perform other financial services" and "contribute to national economic growth, increase tax payments, 
and create new jobs" in the United States. 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 The Director further concluded that the Petitioner is not well-positioned to advance her 
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. 
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 analyzed the pertinent evidence and determined that the record does not 
corroborate the Petitioner's claims that her endeavor meets the national importance element in 
Dhanasar. 
The Director analyzed the industry related articles and reports that provide background information 
on the role of financial analysts and the problem of income gap but determined that they did not discuss 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85. 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
3 The Director's conclusion on the substantial merit of the endeavor is in the request for evidence issued March 6, 2024. 
2 
the Petitioner's specific endeavor or its impact with persuasive details. The Director stated that 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 for its projections and does not 
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 Director noted that the record did 
not demonstrate that the Petitioner will pursue her endeavor in an economically depressed area. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally summarizes and reiterates the evidence previously submitted on 
record, such as her employment background, importance of small and medium-sized enterprises 
(SMEs), and economic impacts of her proposed business. The Petitioner contends that her business 
plan provides "a comprehensive and detailed plan for implementing innovative financial solutions" 
and strategies for "streamlining financial processes and adopting data-driven financial analysis to 
optimize cost management and compliance for SMEs." Despite the claims that the Petitioner's 
innovations will fill "a critical gap in the market," and set "new standards for financial efficiency and 
stability," the Petitioner has not submitted independent and corroborating evidence showing that her 
innovations and strategies will influence or impact the field of finance and business, rising to the level 
of national importance. 
The Petitioner contends that the business plan's economic modeling and the Regional Input-Output 
Modeling System [RIMS II] multipliers quantifying indirect jobs support her endeavor's significant 
potential for job creation. The Petitioner states that her proposed business will produce "a ripple effect, 
enhancing the economic stability of the region and beyond." However, the business plan does not 
provide sufficient details for the basis of these projections, including the multiplier evidence itself, or 
adequately explain how these staffing targets will be realized. The Petitioner also has not submitted 
corroborating information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
directly attributable to her 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner further asserts that the Director did not analyze the expert letters highlighting her 
"unique financial strategies" and "widespread economic benefits that extend far beyond her immediate 
clientele." However, these letters are from the Petitioner's previous employers who attest to her 
dedication, work ethics, and experience as a competent financial analyst, without meaningfully 
analyzing or discussing how her proposed endeavor meets the national importance as defined in 
Dhanasar. 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 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 her specific endeavor impacts a matter that 
is a subject of national initiatives or discussing the government's interest in promoting the use of the 
Petitioner's innovation or solutions. 
3 
In sum, the Petitioner has not provided any new evidence or compelling arguments that overcome the 
Director's determination. 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 submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence 
of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters so as to determine whether they support 
the petitioner's eligibility. Id.; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that 
expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Because the letters do not 
discuss the proposed endeavor or its impact, they are not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility under 
the first prong ofDhanasar. 
Therefore, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's claims on appeal that the Director overlooked 
relevant evidence in the record. To determine whether a petitioner has met her 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 of 
E-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 she 
meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework but determined that the evidence overall lacked 
probative value. 4 We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not provided evidence to support 
that her endeavor as a financial analyst or a business owner would have broader implications beyond 
her clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance. As the petition will remain denied for this reason, further analysis of the 
Petitioner's 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) (per curiam) (holding that 
agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the 
ultimate decision). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she 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. 
4 While the Director may not have specifically named each piece of evidence in the record, this is not indicative of a failure 
to consider the evidence. See Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1142-43 (5th Cir. 1984) ("[The Board oflmmigration 
Appeals] has no duty to write an exegesis on every contention."); see also Ren v. USCIS, 60 F.4th 89, 97 (4th Cir. 2023) 
("[S]o long as [USCTS] has given reasoned consideration to the petition, and made adequate findings, we will not require 
that it address specifically each claim the petitioner made or each piece of evidence the petitioner presented." ( cleaned 
up)); Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (joining the Seventh and the Federal Circuit Courts 
of Appeals in presuming that the Board reviewed all of the evidence ofrecord). 
4