dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 15, 2024 In Re: 29847547 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an international financial advisor, 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 EB-2 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 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. 
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 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. 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 ofDhanasar, 
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 also 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). 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner initially indicated he will advise clients on financial 
investments, assets, and wealth portfolios management, and attract foreign direct investors to allocate 
capital that will substantially enhance cross-border activities in the U.S. economy. In response to the 
Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner further stated he will capitalize on his knowledge of global 
international products, regulatory frameworks in Mexico and the United States, and the financial activities 
that may impact the wealth of his clients. As an international financial advisor, he stated will manage 
every aspect of his client's financial life, from retirement planning to estate planning to savings and 
investing. The Petitioner further indicated he currently manages over $200 million of assets for his clients. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established 
neither the substantial merit nor the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director stated 
that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his undertaking will have a broader impact on the field outside 
of his prospective company and/or clients. The Director also indicated that the Petitioner had not shown 
his proposed work has broader implications in the field, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or 
other substantial positive economic effects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states the Director's comments were misplaced and shortsighted when he 
stated that the Petitioner's talent will be a trickle-down effect as long as the company he is employed 
with and/or advising is successful, and states that the response to the request for evidence sufficiently 
established why the proposed endeavor is of substantial merit and of national interest. In addition, on 
appeal, the Petitioner generally reiterates the previously claimed economic impacts of his proposed 
business, and the benefits of his profession and his qualifications, but does not provide any new 
evidence or arguments which overcome the Director's determination. 
Regarding the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, the record includes documentation with 
cited sources of how the U.S. financial service industry is fundamental to the U.S. economy, including 
the role of a strong financial services sector, the role of financial advisors, and cross border financial 
planning. Since international financial advisors work with clients to create customized plans and 
provide sound financial recommendations to help achieve financial confidence for clients and/or 
companies, they are beneficial in assisting customers and companies with financial securities and the 
economy. The proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
Regarding national importance, the Petitioner reiterates on appeal his proposed work is of national 
importance because his occupation of international financial advisor and the financial services industry 
in which he works stand to broadly enhance society welfare, offer significant potential to employ U.S. 
2 
workers, provide substantial positive economic effects, have national or even global implications in 
the field, and impact national initiatives. The issue here, however, is not the national importance of 
the field, 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. The record does not 
include adequate corroborating evidence to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work in 
financial management offers broader implications in his field or substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation that rise to the level of national importance. 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. 
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. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable financial management services for his 
clients, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of his proposed endeavor rises 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. Although the Petitioner contends that the 
fact that he manages investments in the amount of $200 million in the United States cannot be 
"understated nor overlooked" , the Petitioner did not provide any documentation or information 
regarding these investments to show that they do in fact make an impact in the financial management 
field. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently 
extend beyond his clientele to impact the financial management field, the financial services industry, 
or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also contends the proposed endeavor has national importance because it has 
national and global implications as it promotes cross border investments in the United States. 
Regarding the cross-border business transactions , the record does not adequately explain how the 
financial services the Petitioner proposed to provide would influence foreign companies or investors 
to invest in the United States or U.S. companies to conduct cross-border activities abroad at a level 
implicating national importance. While the Petitioner links foreign direct investment with job creation 
in general and also links cross-border activities to job creation in the United States, the record does 
not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any foreign direct investment in the United States 
or any cross-border activities to be procured as a result of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would 
create jobs on a magnitude, which could elevate his proposed endeavor to a 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 sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional 
or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's financial management projects would reach the level 
of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner 's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
3 
The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the endeavor realistically has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic benefits for the United States. 
Consequently, the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reason for dismissal is dispositive of 
the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's remaining arguments 
concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
(1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are 
unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4