dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 2, 2024 In Re: 35235596 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a personal financial advisor and entrepreneur, 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 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that she was an advanced degree professional or eligible for a waiver of the job offer requirement in 
the national interest. We later dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of Dhanasar. Matter 
ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). 1 The matter is now before us again on a combined 
motion to reopen and reconsider. 
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). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion 
to reopen and the motion to reconsider. 
In denying the appeal, we indicated that the Petitioner emphasized her 29 years of experience in the 
finance industry and multiple letters of support discussing her work experience and education. 
However, we reasoned that the Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in her field related to 
the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, not the first prong, focusing on the national importance 
of her proposed endeavor. We also stated that the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor must stand separate and apart from her education, skills, and job experience. Dhanasar, 26 
I&N Dec. at 890. Further, we discussed submitted articles and industry reports about financial 
advisors and the role of immigrants as entrepreneurs, including information from O*NET OnLine and 
1 We did not address whether we agreed with the Director 's determination that the Petitioner did not establish she held an 
advanced degree as our conclusion that the proposed endeavor lacked national importance was dispositive of the appeal. 
Likewise , since the Petitioner did not establish that she met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 
we also declined to reach and reserved the appellate arguments regarding her eligibility under the second and third prongs 
outlined in Dhanasar. 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 Matter ofL-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) . 
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics. We reasoned that 
this evidence was not relevant since the issue was not the national importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which she would work; but the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes 
to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
We further concluded the Petitioner did not establish that her specific endeavor would have significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the 
United States. Specifically, we stated the Petitioner did not provide evidence indicating that the benefits 
to the regional or national economy resulting from her undertaking would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. In support of the motion to 
reconsider, the Petitioner largely reiterates assertions it submitted in support of the petition and 
previously on appeal. The Petitioner states that her proposed consulting business would provide "a 
formidable stream of resources into the national economy" and align "with federal initiatives to 
stimulate economic growth and job creation, notably in underserved areas." The Petitioner contends 
that her proposed investment consulting business would impact the "Financial Advice Services 
Industry" leading to the payment of $1.26 million in wages and create 24 jobs in Florida and Georgia 
over five years, including generating $3.32 million in revenue during this time. The Petitioner states 
that her business initiative "mirrors the Federal Economic Development Administration (EDA) goals, 
which seek to foster job growth and economic prosperity through investment in economically 
distressed areas." The Petitioner again emphasizes the importance of financial advisors, asserting that 
their work "is critical to the U.S. economy," emphasizing that her expert analysis would play "a crucial 
role in strengthening the financial health of businesses." The Petitioner further points to her "deep 
understanding of the Brazilian business environment" which she states would be valuable to U.S. 
companies, "enhancing their global competitiveness on a global scale." The Petitioner also again 
discusses the positive impact of immigrants and small businesses on the economy. 
The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). The Petitioner's contentions in her current motion merely reargue facts 
and issues we have already considered on appeal. See e.g., Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 
(BIA 2006) ("a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the 
same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior Board 
decision"). The Petitioner resubmits assertions previously set forth on the record, again emphasizing 
her experience, and generally, the importance of financial advisors, immigrants, and small businesses 
within the U.S. economy. However, as we discussed in our prior decision, the national importance of 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor must stand separate and apart from her education, skills, and job 
experience. Once again, the issue is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession 
in which she will work; but the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
2 
On motion, the Petitioner does not articulate how our prior determination was in error, namely, our 
conclusion she did not demonstrate that her proposed financial advisory business would operate on 
such a scale as rising to the level of national importance. The Petitioner only reiterates the asserted 
financial impact of her proposed business but does not specifically articulate how these projections 
would have substantial positive economic effects on a national level. The Petitioner asserts that her 
endeavor would be consistent with national initiatives and foster job growth and economic prosperity 
through investment in economically distressed areas. However, the Petitioner does not indicate in 
what specific economically distressed areas her proposed company would create significant job 
growth nor does she indicate with specificity, or establish with supporting documentation, how her 
proposed endeavor would enhance the global competitiveness of U.S. companies. We will not 
re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a contract with a U.S. company reflecting that the Petitioner would 
begin work as a district agent at an insurance company in August 2024. The Petitioner further provides 
an employment letter from a foreign company reflecting her fulltime work as a business consultant in 
Brazil from April 2015 to December 2021. The Petitioner also submits a license indicating that she is 
authorized to engage in "various financial and insurance-related activities within the state of Florida." 
The Petitioner contends that this additional evidence demonstrates that she holds an advanced degree 
and possesses extensive post-baccalaureate work experience exceeding five years. 
The evidence submitted in support of the motion to reopen does not address the issue of the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the basis of our dismissal of the prior appeal. The 
new evidence provided on motion does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor and her eligibility for the benefit sought. In fact, the Petitioner proposed work as 
a district agent for a U.S. insurance company leaves substantial question as to whether her proposed 
endeavor would be carried out as claimed and have a substantial positive economic impact on a national 
level. As such, the Petitioner has not met the requirements of a motion to reopen. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3