dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 08, 2024 In Re: 30644094 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur and finance manager, 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 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo '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 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 1, grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
1 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature) .. 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The first Dhanasar 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with the Director's 
conclusion that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit as the endeavor falls within the range of 
areas we indicated could demonstrate an endeavor of substantial merit: business and 
entrepreneurialism. Id. However, while the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, the record does not show it has national importance. 
The Petitioner proposes to establish her own company in the United States to provide financial 
management services to small and medium-sized companies within the hospitality and tourism 
industry. Through this endeavor, the Petitioner intends to help her clients "generate business 
efficiency and profitability in areas of employee shortage and retention, business efficiencies and 
financial support to increase revenue and profitability, system process improvement to improve 
automation and guest satisfaction, and strategic and bespoke advice to hospitality and travel clients." 
According to the Petitioner, her company will "contribute to increased financial security among [her] 
clients," and will thus allow these companies to "improve operations and achieve better productivity 
and profitability levels, therefore generating revenues within the country and creating employment 
opportunities." The record includes a five-year business plan, which outlines the specific services her 
company would offer, including: business and financial expertise; design, development, and 
implementation of data analytics and automation of systems; recruitment and training of finance 
professionals, specialized consultancy, and wider contribution in the United States (which would 
include publishing case studies and blogs online). The Petitioner also submitted multiple 
recommendation letters from prior customers and industry professionals attesting to her business 
acumen and prior successes in the field, three expert opinion letters, and industry reports and articles 
discussing the importance of the hospitality and tourism industry to the U.S. economy, as well as the 
economic challenges facing these industries, and national initiatives aimed at improving their financial 
outlook. 2 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally asserts that the Director did not apply the correct burden of proof 
and did not properly consider the evidence on record. The Petitioner relies on the same arguments 
previously put forth and maintains that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that she meets all 
three prongs under the Dhanasar framework. 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
2 
Upon de novo review, we agree that the record does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance. In Dhanasar we said that, in 
determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of 
the proposed endeavor, noting 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. 
The Petitioner asserts she is "proposing a complete overhaul of the paradigm" of this industry, and her 
"goal is to trigger a domino effect that elevates the broader U.S. service and cultural exchange sectors." 
However, the evidence does not support a conclusion that her endeavor will directly result in broader 
implications to the field, beyond her immediate clients. Generalized conclusory statements that do 
not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US.Atty Gen., 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.e. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in 
immigration benefits adjudications). In the same way teaching activities proposed by the petitioner in 
Dhanasar were not shown to have a broader impact on the field of STEM education, activities which 
only benefit the Petitioner's clients, like the offerings outlined in the business plan, would not have 
broader implications in the field. Id. 
The Petitioner's continued reliance on background information and stat1st1cs concerning the 
hospitality and tourism industries is also not persuasive. We reviewed the expert opinion letters from 
Dr. S-S-, Dr. H-Q-, and Dr. H-G-P-. But they offer little additional explanation to establish the 
national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. They do not discuss the direct potential 
impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or of the offerings outlined in her business plan. Instead, 
they focus primarily on the importance of the hospitality and tourism field, as well as the importance 
of financial management consulting in general. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as 
expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r. 1988). However, users 
is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a noncitizen's eligibility. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. 
Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight 
that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). 
Here, much of the content of the expert opinion letters lack relevance with respect to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
Likewise, while the recommendation letters and the expert opinion letters discuss the Petitioner's 
expertise in the field and her ability to assist her customers through her consultancy, the evidence does 
not establish broader implications from her work. While we recognize that the Petitioner has had a 
successful career advising hotels and other agencies in the hospitality and tourism industry, and has 
presented at industry conferences, the record does not establish her impact to the field beyond her 
immediate clients. Moreover, a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under 
Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
3 
national." Id. at 890. The issue here 1s whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor. 
Finally, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish that her endeavor 
"has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. While the Petitioner asserts that "the cumulative 
success of [her customers] can boost the overall U.S. hospitality industry, catalyzing local economies 
and driving the nation's recovery from the pandemic," and her work will "invigorate an industry, and 
by extension, invigorat[e] the national economy," the record does not support these assertions. 
Although any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact a local economy, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity directly resulting from her proposed 
endeavor would rise to the level of national importance. In the business plan, the Petitioner indicated 
that by the fifth year of operations she anticipates her company will have an annual revenue of $9 
million, and an annual federal tax payment of$677,793. She also indicated that she intends to employ 
61 employees with a payroll expense of $4,978,036 annually. However, the business plan provides 
no explanation for the basis of these projections other than the explanation of her hourly rates for each 
service offering. Even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were more than 
conjecture, they do not establish that the endeavor would operate on a scale rising to the level of 
national importance, as the Petitioner has not explained how these proposed employment numbers and 
revenue will impact the area of intended operations, nor has she provided evidence that her business 
operations will impact an economically depressed area. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4