dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15382022 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 29, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial analyst, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but had not established 
that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts he is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 
2010). Upon de nova 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. 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. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "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). 1 Dhanasarstates that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job off er and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national impmiance, 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she 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; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01). 
2 See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936F.3d 868, 2019 WL4051593 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, evenassummg 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national' s contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national' s contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
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 ce1iification. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
In this matter, the Petitioner's initial "Professional Plan & Statement" stated that his proposed 
endeavor "is to work as a Financial Analyst, to advise U.S. companies on how to grow successfully, 
meet their goals, and remain profitable." In response to the Director's request for evidence, he added 
that he will "specifically focus[] on financial analysis and foreign direct investments, while 
simultaneously enhancing U.S. financial markets and allowing for effective cross-border operations 
between the United States and Latin America." 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The Director also detennined that the Petitioner had established that the proposed endeavor met 
the substantial merit pmiion of the first prong set f mih in the Dhanasar analytical framework. The 
Director's decision then discussed the deficiencies in the submitted evidence and provided a well­
reasoned explanation as to why the Petitioner did not meet the national importance portion of the first 
prong. 
Therefore, upon consideration of the entire record, including the arguments made on appeal, we adopt 
and affim1 the Director's decision with the comments below. 4 See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 26 
I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter o.f Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994); see also 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and 
evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved 
by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided 
the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We further indicated 
that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that"[ a ]n undertaking may have 
national impmiance 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. 
On appeal, rather than providing additional evidence to overcome the Director's conclusions, the 
Petitioner again repeatedly relies on his experience and his prior career accomplishments in Brazil to 
establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. However, the Petitioner's expe1iise and 
3 SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs. 
4 While we may not discuss eveiy document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
record of success in previous po sitions are con siderations under Dhana sar's second prong , which 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of his proposed work . 
The Petitioner also relies on submitted reports and articles about his industry and makes general 
assertions such as his "endeavor is unquestionably of national importance, given the significant 
economic impact of the financial services industry in the United States, as well as globally." As 
previously stated , however , 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, not the importance or economic benefits of his industry . 
In addition , the Petitioner generally claims that his "endeavor is of national importance because it not 
only enhances his served companies' and clients ' financial objectives , but it also results in steep 
economic solutions for whole market players, such as business operations, commercial transactions , 
investments , and the U.S. economy at large," but does not offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate 
that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 
Furthermore , the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
directly attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of"substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890 . 
In Dhana sar, 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 
similarly find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to suffi ciently 
extend beyond his emplo yer(s) and clients to impact the indu stry more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Nor has he shown that the particul ar work he proposes to 
undertake offers original innovations that contribute to advancements in finance or otherwise has 
broade r implicat ions for his field. For all these reasons , the Petitioner's propo sed 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 hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding the remaining issues. 
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 Matt er 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has notmettherequisite firstprongof theDhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
he has not established that he is eligible for , or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter 
4 
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