dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 15, 2024 In Re: 31222528 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a finance specialist, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the 
Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 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. 
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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," 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 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
• 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
According to the Petitioner's statement provided with the initial filing, he intends to continue working 
as a finance specialist. The Petitioner indicates that he specializes in investment funding for 
U.S.-based companies and real estate projects; his "work focuses on structuring and sourcing equity 
capital to acquire and invest in American companies"; and once he identifies "an investment 
opportunity within [his] list of target industries in the U.S." his work includes "deeply analyzing each 
opportunity, sourcing for investors, structuring the investment, and advising the company on its 
operations." The Petitioner intends "to continue on this path by offering [his] consulting services 
through [his] company, based in New York. In support of his eligibility, 
the Petitioner also submitted a business plan, copies of industry articles and reports, and letters of 
intent expressing interest in working with the Petitioner. 
The Director determined, in part, that the Petitioner's initial filing did not demonstrate the proposed 
endeavor's national importance and issued a request for evidence. In response, the Petitioner asserted 
that the previously submitted documentation established his eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
He contended that his proposed endeavor of providing financial services has national importance 
because "it will have national implications within a particular field" and he has a "proven track record 
of substantial positive economic effects." The Petitioner indicated that he has demonstrated the 
proposed endeavor's impact through the work he has already completed in the United States; he will 
help companies raise profitability, maintain workers, and "broadly enhance societal welfare on a 
national scale" through his work in the private equity sector; and his company will generate significant 
revenue with an estimated $12,100,000 in sales by the fifth year. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that though his proposed endeavor as a finance 
specialist had substantial merit, the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of his endeavor rises to the level of national importance. The Director noted that 
while the submitted evidence emphasized the importance of finance specialists and the role they play 
2 
for organizations, it appeared that the benefit of the Petitioner's endeavor would primarily accrue to 
his prospective employer and the record did not establish that the Petitioner's work has significant 
potential to impact the field or the nation more broadly at a level consistent with national importance. 
The Petitioner did not show that any increased performance or efficiency realized by his prospective 
employer would result in significant job growth or substantial positive economic effects for the nation. 
Therefore, the Petitioner did not meet prong one of Dhanasar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director did not properly analyze the evidence. He asserts, 
in part, that the record demonstrates his proposed endeavor meets the national importance element of 
the first prong of Dhanasar because his company will support the growth and survival of U.S. 
businesses, stimulate foreign investment in the United States, and have substantial positive economic 
effects. The Petitioner contends that his company will have a national impact beyond the number of 
individuals he employs "due to the substantial size and monetary value of the transactions he 
oversees." He refers to the letters of intent from four companies in the financial sector that express 
"their desire in collaborating with him shortly" and argues that the letters "illustrate the interest and 
potential benefit his services can bring to the financial industry." 
Upon review, the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence 
to evaluate whether he had demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he meets the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not 
the 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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. Generally, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of a 
petitioner's work. We noted in Dhanasar that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed 
endeavor and 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. Although the Petitioner discusses 
the value and importance of financial services and its impact on the U.S. economy, Dhanasar requires 
us to focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," not the 
importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work. Id. at 889. 
Further, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his company's operations would provide substantial 
economic benefits to the region or nation at a level commensurate with national importance, nor did 
he demonstrate that his company's activities would substantially impact job creation and economic 
growth, either regionally or nationally. For example, the Petitioner's business plan projects that his 
company will have 14 full-time employees by the fifth year of operation. We also note the record 
contains four letters of intent from companies indicating interest in working with the Petitioner in the 
future. However, the letters do not reflect contractual work or investment commitments with the 
Petitioner's company. Moreover, the letters are not sufficient to show significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects. 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. Further 
analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would 
serve no meaningful purpose. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also 
3 
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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4