dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 12, 2024 In Re: 34632904 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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. § 1l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Applicant had shown eligibility for EB-2 classification. 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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
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. 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; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
Id. 
The Petitioner, a citizen and national of Brazil, seeks EB-2 classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability and a waiver of the job offer and labor certification requirements for that 
classification based on the national interest. She states that she intends to open a financial consulting 
organization in the United States. She asserts that her financial consulting organization would offer a 
wide range of services for individuals and organizations that would aide in stimulating both the local 
and national economy. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to support her claim 
that her proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance. The Director concluded 
that the Petitioner had not established the endeavor would have the economic impact required to rise 
to the level of national importance. Moreover, the Director determined that the Petitioner provided 
only general statements regarding her proposed activities and their potential effects in her field of 
endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director did not consider the evidence provided that supports 
her claim of substantial merit and national importance. She states that her proposed endeavor to 
operate a financial consulting business is of substantial merit because it would stimulate economic 
activity and provide employment to the people she hires. The Petitioner has established the substantial 
merit of her endeavor on appeal. However, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision as it relates 
to national importance. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. 
INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision 
below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that appellate 
adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized 
consideration" to the case). 
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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner's business plan anticipates that the Petitioner's company will reach a total of 19 
employees in year five, with payroll expenses growing from $311,000 in year one to $1.1 million in 
year five. She also projected generating $455,000 in revenue in year one, increasing to $1.5 million in 
year five. Nonetheless, the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately 
clarify how these projections will be realized, nor does the record contain evidence to support the 
business plan's financial projections. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the 
evidence demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is probably true, where the determination of truth is 
made based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 376. In evaluating the evidence, truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but 
by its quality. See id. Here, the lack of supporting details detracts from probative value of the business 
plan. 
2 
Even if we assumed all the projections in the business plan were accurate, the record lacks evidence 
demonstrating that its impact would be nationally important. On appeal, the Petitioner contends 
that her business will "introduce innovative financial analysis techniques and personalized planning 
services." She further states that she wants to "set new industry standard" that could lead to 
"advancements in financial management practices." Yet the Petitioner did not provide documentation 
to support these statements or to show that the company will result in substantial economic growth on 
the level of national importance. The record does not illustrate how creating 19 jobs and generating 
$1.5 million in revenue as projected in the business plan would have substantial positive economic 
effects on the level of national importance. The Petitioner must support assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has 
therefore not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of 
her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance or that her influence would reach 
beyond her clients and employees. The remainder of the Petitioner's arguments on appeal center on 
her past professional success and the statements provided by colleagues about her prior work. These 
statements are more applicable to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework than to the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor. Accordingly, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
Because the identified basis for dismissal is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility for EB-2 classification as a person of 
exceptional ability and under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
(1976) (stating that "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). 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she is eligible for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3