dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance And Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 02, 2023 In Re: 26400108 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a treasurer and controller, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree or of exceptional ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this 
discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national 
interest to do so. See 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or of exceptional ability 1 and 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. 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. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petition must first demonstrate qualification for 
the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of 
1 The Director 's decision was the first instance in which the Petitioner was notified that evidence in the record did not 
demonstrate the Petitioner's categorical eligibility for EB-2 classification. And the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner 
was not categorically eligible for EB-2 classification cited evidence and facts that were not present in the record. 
Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner was categorically ineligible for EB-2 classification . 
Nevertheless , the record does not contain sufficient evidence that the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional or an 
individual of exceptional ability. But we need not make a full determination of the Petitioner's categorical eligibility for 
EB-2 classification today because the national interest waiver issue alone is sufficient to detennine the outcome of this 
appeal. 
exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement would be in the national interest. 
Whilst neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that users may as a matter of discretion 
grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the labor certification, to a petitioner 
classified in the EB-2 category if they demonstrate that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance, (2) the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor, and (3) that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the 
requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. users may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, indicate 
that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and 
thus of a labor certification. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The Petitioner initially proposed to continue working in their field for U.S. companies as a treasurer 
and controller. The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) for additional evidence and 
clarification of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to determine its substantial merit and national 
importance. The record contains several items submitted initially with the petition, in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), and at appeal including but not to their support letter, 
professional plan and statement, industry reports/articles, recommendation letters, expert opinion, and 
2 
educational documents. 2 The Petitioner initially stated that they would "utilize [their] skills and 
knowledge to work as a Treasurer and Controller and make contributions of major significance to the 
corporate industry" in the United States. The Petitioner referred in their support letter to their 
"experiences" and "knowledge in the areas of finance, banking, and business controllership" as 
desirable to "boost U.S. economic growth, promote financial stability, and transform government­
wide financial stewardship." They elaborated in their professional plan and statement that they would 
help "companies plan, direct, and coordinate their financial targets." The Petitioner's endeavor would 
entail: 
• Providing treasurer, account management, and business controllership services to U.S. 
companies and financial departments. 
• Researching financial markets, conducting financial analysis, creating as well as improving 
financial and controllership policies. 
• Managing budgets and expense accounts. 
• Restructuring controllership, finance, and compliance areas. 
• Advising executives on optimal financial strategies in regard to acquisitions. 
• Negotiating debts, collections, and payment plans to help improve the financial health of 
compames. 
• Developing, improving, and managing expense and collection system to better account for all 
costs and obtain dept repayment. 
• Analyzing budget reports, accounts, and financial documents to help companies meet their 
goals. 
• Creating U.S. jobs through managing companies' finances, allowing them to collect on debts, 
save money, and make better investments. 
The Petitioner's response significantly departed from the proposed endeavor they indicated in their 
initial filing. The proposed endeavor morphed into the Petitioner effectively serving as the chief 
executive officer of their own entrepreneurial business. In the RFE response, the Petitioner 
transformed their proposed endeavor from a treasurer and controller offering services to American 
employers to an owner/operator of a commercial and residential cleaning company. The addition of 
the Petitioner's entrepreneurial business did not enhance or clarify the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
to be a treasurer and controller providing services to American employers. To the contrary, it 
transformed the proposed endeavor into a wholly different one. Through this commercial and 
residential cleaning company, the Petitioner proposed to endeavor to provide a set of "high-level 
accounting, strategic planning, financial, business, and assets management, personnel management 
and training investment, risk management, and other consulting services across multiple industries 
including oil and gas, beverage, and cleaning services." They proposed to assert responsibility over 
the administration and management of the cleaning company, support the role of the company's 
managers, and perform the training of the company's professionals and team development. None of 
their duties involved providing services resembling those performed by a treasurer and controller. In 
fact, the company's business plan reflected that the company's treasurer and controller duties would 
be shared between an administrative and financial manager and an administrative and financial 
analyst. 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner essentially attempts to convince us that their many years of progressive 
experience in the financial services market renders any endeavor they propose to undertake in the 
United States raised to the level of national importance. They also highlight their 'in-depth knowledge 
of the finance and business environment in Brazil." But the Petitioner's claims are not persuasive. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on the proposed endeavor; not on the Petitioner's 
qualifications to execute the proposed endeavor. The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework is consequently unconcerned with the individual Petitioner. So the Petitioner's contentions 
about their successful career-to-date, as well as evidence and information of their achievements and 
recognition such that they are, are irrelevant to an examination of their eligibility under the first prong 
of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The Petitioner's materially significant transformation into an entrepreneur rendered their proposed 
endeavor ill-defined and amorphous. The Petitioner argues at appeal that their residential and 
commercial cleaning service will be a vehicle "helping U.S. companies identify strategies for 
restricting, perform cost benefit analysis of these strategies, develop financial tracking and reporting 
tools to help management monitor fiscal spend and ensure alignment to planned budgets" by 
"enhancing U.S. commercial interests" prompting "overall economic enrichment." On appeal the 
Petitioner also attempts to demonstrate that their administration and management of a residential and 
commercial cleaning service in Florida will facilitate U.S. companies connecting with business 
opportunities in Brazil. The Petitioner provides no meaningful detail to specify how this could be 
accomplished other than an oblique reference to the Petitioner's knowledge and familiarity with 
Brazil. It is difficult to comprehend how a residential and commercial cleaning company could 
provide complex financial and business consulting services for companies interested in global business 
as described by the Petitioner, and the record contains insufficient coherent evidence to explain this 
further. 
The Petitioner's ambitious expansion plans are not supported in the record. And it is unclear in the 
record how the Petitioner's anticipated hiring spree for the proposed endeavor itself would have a 
substantial prospective positive economic effect beyond itself to broader initiatives commensurate 
with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner's intention to base their company in a Small Business Administration 
(SBA) HUBZone is unpersuasive. The Petitioner contends at appeal that the presence of their 
residential and commercial cleaning service in a HUBZone will "generat[ e] jobs for U.S. workers in 
these underutilized areas, improving the wages and working conditions for U.S. workers, and helping 
local community bring investments to the regions." The HUBZone program's goal is to promote 
business growth in underutilized business zones with the goal of awarding 3% of federal contract 
dollars to companies that are HUBZone certified. Joining the HUBZone program makes a business 
eligible to compete for certain federal contracts in the "set-aside" category. There are several required 
qualifications to participate in the program, but the most dispositive requirement for purposes of our 
analysis is that the business seeking to participate in the HUBZone program must be at least 51 % 
owned by U.S. citizens, a community development corporation, an agricultural cooperative, an Alaska 
Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. Whilst it is unknown and the 
record is silent about what if any federal programs exist in the "set-aside" category for residential and 
commercial cleaning services like the one proposed by the Petitioner, the record is crystal clear that 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be wholly owned and controlled by the Petitioner and that 
4 
the Petitioner is not a U.S. citizen, a community development corporation, an agricultural cooperative, 
an Alaska Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. So the fact that the 
Petitioner' proposed endeavor may be in a HUBZone is wholly irrelevant to whether the Petitioner's 
endeavor rose to a level of national importance. 
A petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit they are seeking at the time the petition is filed. 
See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petitioner may not make 
material changes to a petition, such as converting a plan to be a treasurer and controller to U.S. 
companies into operating a residential and commercial cleaning service with aspirations to provide 
financial consulting, to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc Comm'r 1998). The Petitioner's transfiguration of their 
proposed endeavor from the initial petition to the response to the RFE introduced significant ambiguity 
into their proposed endeavor which prevented analysis into its substantial merit or national importance. 
The Dhanasar framework cannot be applied to two dueling proposed endeavors. A petitioner must 
identify the specific endeavor they propose to undertake. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. It is not possible to determine the substantial merit and national importance of an endeavor when 
a Petitioner cannot consistently articulate the nature of the endeavor. So we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not established that their proposed endeavor is of substantial merit and national 
importance. And because the Petitioner has not established that their proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit and national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong, they are not eligible 
for a national interest waiver. We reserve our opinion regarding the second and third Dhanasar prongs 
applicability to this proposed endeavor as well as the Petitioner's eligibility for EB-2 immigrant 
classification. 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 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 find 
that they have not established that they are eligible for or otherwise merit a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5