dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance And Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 05, 2024 In Re: 34063294 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial manager 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. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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. Our precedent decision in 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: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts 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. ADV AN CED DEGREE 
The Petitioner asserts that he qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. In 
support of this claim, he provided copies of his transcript and foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's 
degree in business administration from the __________ in Mongolia. He also 
provided copies of his transcript and U.S. master's degree in business administration from the 
While the evidence appears to support a conclusion that the 
Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, after reviewing the record, we 
question whether it, in fact, contains evidence that the Petitioner possesses either an advanced degree 
from an accredited college or university, or has five years of progressive post-baccalaureate 
experience in the specialty. 2 
However, as the resolution of the issues pertaining to the Petitioner's eligibility for a waiver of the job 
offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, under the Dhanasar analytical framework is 
dispositive of this appeal, we will reserve consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested 
EB-2 category. 3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("As a general rule 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 ofD-L-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 568, 577 n.10 (BIA 2022) ( declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
The Petitioner proposes to work as a financial manager and to start his own company, _____ 
which will specialize in the sale of mining equipment and parts throughout the United States and 
abroad. Specifically, his business plan states that his company's objective is to "act as a bridge for the 
2 c=]does not appear to be accredited by an institutional accreditation organization recognized by the U.S. Department 
of Education. The Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs reports that the Accrediting Council 
for Independent Colleges and Schools terminated the laccreditation onl 12008. See Office of Postsecondary 
Education, U.S. Dep't of Educ., Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs, 
https://ope.ed.gov/dapip/#/institution-profil.,! The Petitioner's transcript reflects that he attended between 
2009 and 2011, after the school's accreditation was terminated. Thus, the documentation does not appear to establish that 
he possesses an advanced degree from an accredited college or university. Likewise, the Petitioner's Form ETA 750B, 
Statement of Qualifications of Alien, reflects that he has worked for las a virtual senior accountant 
on a part-time basis for 20 hours per week since May 2016. Prior to that, his resume reflects he worked as an assistant 
accountant forl Ifrom September 2002 to March 2003. Unrelated to the specialty, the Petitioner also reportedly 
worked as a salesman for a carpet company, an assistant manager for a pizza store, an uber driver, and an Amazon flex 
driver. Based on this record, the evidence does not appear to show that he acquired five years of full-time, progressive 
experience in the field following the completion ofhis foreign bachelor's degree in 2002 to qualify as an advanced degree 
professional. 
3 That said, the Petitioner should be prepared to address the issue, including the observations we have made here, in any 
future NIW filings. 
2 
export and import of heavy machinery, equipment and parts for the mining and construction field to 
Mongolia and other Asian countries," as well as to the local market and neighboring countries such as 
Canada. Through his company, the Petitioner intends to serve small businesses in the mining sector 
and aid them in expanding their businesses across the United States. He also plans to help companies 
find additional sales opportunities and offer a wider variety of products and services. While the 
Petitioner's company will specialize in selling mining equipment and parts, the business plan states 
that it "will also be inserted in other industries and related markets that present opportunities for the 
success of the venture in the United States." 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied the first and third Dhanasar prongs, but did not 
meet the second prong requiring him to show he was well positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor. Upon de novo review of the record, we agree that the Petitioner does not satisfy this prong 
and so has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. However, we also conclude that 
the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated his proposed endeavor's national importance under 
the first prong and will, therefore, withdraw the Director's determination on this issue. While we may 
not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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. 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. We also 
stated 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. 
In this case, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In particular, he has not 
described how his work as a financial manager and entrepreneur operating an import and export 
business will have a broader impact beyond the individual clients he will serve. While he claims that 
his endeavor will produce "significant national benefits" by contributing tax revenue, generating jobs, 
and ultimately helping to increase the flow of money in the U.S. on a national level, which will, in 
tum, contribute to the U.S. gross domestic product, he has not offered sufficient, specific evidence 
demonstrating any significant U.S. economic impact directly attributable to his future work. For 
example, according to his business plan, the Petitioner expects to employ 6 individuals with a total 
revenue of $668,902.50 in the fust year of operation, increasing to 33 employees with revenue of 
$2,408,962.50 by the fifth year of operation. He also expects to create 165 indirect jobs and pay 
$367,614.28 in taxes by the fifth year. However, the business plan does not adequately support these 
projections ofjob and revenue creation and does not explain in detail how its forecasts were calculated 
or how its projections will be realized. 
3 
Moreover, even if the projections were more than conjecture, we would still conclude that the 
Petitioner had not adequately demonstrated how his endeavor would have a significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation. For 
instance, he has not detailed how the claimed creation of 33 direct jobs and 165 indirect jobs by year 
five demonstrates a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise shows how his 
endeavor's potential economic impacts would result in any demonstrable effect on the regional or 
national economy. The Petitioner also has not, for example, established that such employment figures 
would utilize a significant population of workers in the area or would substantially impact job creation 
and economic growth in I I Virginia, where he plans to headquarter his company, let alone in 
the United States generally. Likewise, while the Petitioner forecasts $2,408,962.50 ofrevenue by year 
five, he has not explained or established the significance of this data to show that the benefits to the 
regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. 
We further note that the business plan concedes that "[ m Jost of the jobs and generation of taxes will 
be done indirectly, through the companies served." Putting aside our concerns related to the lack of 
direct potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor, even considering this claim, the record 
lacks sufficient evidence, as discussed above, that these predicted gains would be substantial enough 
to rise to the level of national importance. The record does not support a determination that any 
indirect benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" under Dhanasar. While 
any increased business activity has the potential to positively impact the economy, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated how the economic activity resulting from his endeavor, including any "ripple 
effects" thereof, would have such broader implications that it would rise to the level of national 
importance. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's intention to headquarter his company in a Small Business Administration 
(SBA) HUBZone and later expand to other HUBZones across the nation is not persuasive. He asserts 
that his business will contribute to the development of underserved areas and underdeveloped 
communities with the goal of generating jobs for U.S. workers and "offering them opportunities to 
build up and expand their professional possibilities within the finance industry." He contends this will 
ultimately "improve wages and working conditions for American citizens, and also boost investment 
and economic development throughout such local communities." 
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. While it is unknown and the record is silent about what, if any, federal 
programs exist in the "set-aside" category for endeavors like the one the Petitioner proposes, the record 
is clear that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be wholly owned and controlled by the 
Petitioner and that 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 
4 
tribe. So, the fact that the Petitioner' proposed endeavor may be in a HUBZone is irrelevant to whether 
the Petitioner's endeavor rises to a level of national importance. 
The Petitioner also submitted various industry reports and articles, including documents addressing 
the financial management and business fields generally, labor shortages, small businesses, and the 
importance of immigrant entrepreneurs. The articles and reports, however, provide only general 
background information on these subjects and do not specifically relate to or discuss the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor, including how his specific endeavor might impact these areas more broadly, such 
that it rises to the level of national importance. Moreover, 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." 
Id. at 889. While we acknowledge the overall value of these areas and professionals generally, simply 
working in an important industry is insufficient to establish the proposed endeavor's national 
importance. The Petitioner must still demonstrate the endeavor's potential prospective impact in that 
area of national importance, which he has not done. 
We have also reviewed the expert opinion letter authored by Dr. I an associate 
professor at as well as other support letters written by the Petitioner's 
former work colleagues. However, they provide little probative information to establish the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. While Dr. I I broadly references the 
Petitioner's endeavor and comments on the importance of entrepreneurs, small businesses, and the 
role of immigrant entrepreneurs generally, he does not elaborate in detail on the Petitioner's future 
work and why it, in particular, would be nationally important. For instance, while he speculates that 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has a significant potential to employ U.S. workers and have other 
substantial positive economic effects due to the forecasted growth of the construction and mining 
industry, he does not offer any persuasive detail regarding how the Petitioner's work, specifically, 
would result in these claimed economic benefits or other broader impacts beyond the clients he will 
serve. 
Similarly, while the support letters praise the Petitioner's personal attributes, professional skills, and 
achievements, they do not mention or discuss the Petitioner's endeavor or specific impact thereof, 
including any potential broader implications of his work. Furthermore, to the extent that these letters 
and the Petitioner rely on his experience, skills, accomplishments, and personal ability to attract 
foreign investors, these are considerations under Dhanasar 's second prong. When conducting an 
analysis under Dhanasar 's first prong, we focus on the proposed endeavor itself Accordingly, the 
expert opinion and other support letters are of little probative value in evaluating the endeavor's 
national importance. 
Because the Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor's national importance as required by 
Dhanasar 's first prong, we will withdraw the Director's determination. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a 
5 
model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the 
interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
In concluding the Petitioner did not demonstrate he is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, the Director found that the Petitioner failed to provide the requested documentation 
reflecting his plans to financially support his proposed endeavor, including corroboration of his alleged 
$1,000,000 initial investment. 4 On appeal, the Petitioner does not specifically address the Director's 
analysis or the particular evidentiary deficiencies identified in the Director's decision. As the 
Petitioner has not meaningfully contested the Director's grounds for denial under this prong, he has 
not overcome them. 5 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor's national importance and that he is 
well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national 
interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under Dhanasar 's third prong, therefore, would 
serve no meaningful purpose. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25 ("As a general rule 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 ofD-L-S-, 28 I&N Dec. at 577 n.10 (declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 While the Petitioner points to the success of his family's company in Mongolia, he does corroborate his claim with any 
evidence. 
5 The Petitioner claims he is "undeniably" well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor based on his education, skills, 
and experience as a financial manager. He also generally contends that the Director imposed "novel substantive and 
evidentiary requirements," applied a stricter standard of proof than that of a preponderance of the evidence, and did not 
give "due regard" to the evidence submitted. However, as the Petitioner has not challenged, much less overcome, the 
Director's specific findings, we do not reach these additional arguments. 
6