dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 30, 2024 In Re: 33946100 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the finance industry, 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 record establishes 
the Petitioner is qualified for EB-2 classification but does not establish she is eligible for a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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 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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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, provides the framework for adjudicating 
national interest waiver petitions. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). 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; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an entrepreneur whose proposed endeavor is to start a business in the finance industry. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established her eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. However, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish eligibility for any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework, and 
therefore is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. On appeal, the Petitioner 
contends that the Director erred in this finding. We disagree. The record does not establish the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance and therefore she is not eligible for a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree based on her foreign equivalent degree and over five years of 
progressive experience. The Petitioner submitted diplomas and transcripts for her foreign degrees 
along with an academic evaluation stating that her two degrees are equivalent to U.S. bachelor's 
degrees in legal studies and business administration. The record contains a resume and contracts for 
employment with her current employer; however, the record does not contain letters from previous 
employers as evidence of her progressive experience in compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l). The 
Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree but did not discuss the evidence in the record. However, as the record does not otherwise 
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion, we will reserve the issue of the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 
classification. 2 
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 is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 See INS v. Bagamashad. 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2 
B. National Interest Waiver 
1. Substantial Merit 
The first 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. The Petitioner states that her proposed endeavor has substantial merit as it will advance 
U.S. business and technology while specializing in real estate financing solutions for both American 
and international clients. The record includes information regarding the importance of financial 
services, and the impact of immigrants, entrepreneurship, and small businesses on the economy. We 
conclude that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
2. National Importance 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof: instead 
imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applying the law. She asserts the Director did not give 
"due regard" to the evidence submitted, specifically: the resume outlining her experience; the business 
plan describing her professional credentials, expertise, and accomplishments; evidence of her work in 
the field; letters of recommendation; and industry reports and articles showing the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor and the shortage of professionals with her profile in the field. Upon de novo 
review, we conclude that the Director properly analyzed the evidence to evaluate the Petitioner's 
eligibility by a preponderance of evidence and the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she is eligible 
for a national interest waiver, as addressed below. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's experience in the field of the endeavor, her past experience 
does not establish national importance under the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner states that she 
has over twenty years of experience in the field of the proposed endeavor through her education and 
her work. She also lists several courses she completed and states that, "[d]ue to the record of... 
business achievements and expertise .... [the Petitioner] is set up to help the U.S. stay competitive 
by bringing competitive services, helping develop the country, and providing income for the U.S. 
economy." In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its 
potential prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. While past experience can be persuasive 
for prong two analysis, whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, it 
does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as it does not speak to the 
prospective impact of the proposed endeavor. 
The record contains industry articles and reports on the current state of the finance field in the United 
States. However, 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. Here, the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the 
industry as sufficient to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor. Without sufficient 
documentary evidence of the specific proposed endeavor's broader impact in the industry, the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of 
the Dhanasar framework. In addition, the Petitioner submits articles on a shortage of workers in the 
finance industry. However, a shortage of qualified professionals does not render the work of an 
3 
individual nationally important under the Dhanasar decision. Here, the Petitioner has not established 
that her specific proposed endeavor stands to broadly impact or significantly reduce the claimed 
national shortage. Moreover, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. 
Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that her proposed endeavor is of national importance because 
of the importance of entrepreneurship, immigrants, and small businesses to the economy of the United 
States. While we acknowledge their collective impact, this does not further a claim that the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor will have a broader impact to the field of finance. The record also contains 
an expert opinion letter that speaks to the proposed endeavor's impact; however, it restates many of 
the same claims already addressed above, speaking broadly of the finance industry, small businesses, 
and entrepreneurship. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed 
and considered the record in its entirety. As the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar 
framework. See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that she 
is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4