dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance And Investment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20612853 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 14, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a managing director, seeks second preference immigrant classification as an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, as well as a national interest waiver of the job 
offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). After a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 
classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, grant 
a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national 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. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying 
classification, that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and that he is well positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor. Nevertheless, the Director denied the petition, concluding that the 
evidence did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance or that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest. Accordingly, the Director determined that 
the Petitioner had not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner reasserts his eligibility, arguing that the Director 
did not properly weigh the evidence and erred in the decision. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of 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 is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
{A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interest waiver .... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 USC § 1101(a)(32), provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall 
include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
2 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i i). 
Furthermore, while 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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). In announcing this new framework, we vacated 
our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 
215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant a national interest 
waiver as matter of discretion. See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th 
Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in 
nature). As a matter of discretion, the national interest waiver may be granted if the petitioner 
demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) that the foreign national 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. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three 
prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner stated on his Form 1-140 that he intends to "perform quantitative analyses for 
investment programs affecting institutional investors and state-run pension funds." His proposed 
endeavor includes creating an asset management firm in the United States to provide financial 
analytical services that will attract investment capital into the United States. Specifically, he intends 
to provide tailored investment programs and related management services to international institutional 
investors. These services include "origination and execution [ of] U.S. investment deals through 
nationwide discovery of alternative investment assets." In his proposed endeavor synopsis, the 
Petitioner stated that he "will employ financial analysts to perform research, analysis, forecasting, 
program management, and client relationship management to source American investments to Asian 
institutional investors" and that his long-term goal is to create a gateway for American and Asian 
investors to conduct their respective cross-border investment transactions. In the first three years of 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, he plans to provide U.S. investment programs and acquisitions to 
established clients in order to derive immediate revenue for his asset management firm, which will 
then enable his firm to serve as an intermediary for drawing foreign investment to the United States. 
He identified three Korean-based prospective clients and the services he would provide to these 
institutional clients as a part of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's job at the time of filing the 
Form 1-140 petition was as a managing director ofl !Korean operations, 
which involved directing real estate programs for corporate and institutional clients. He stated that he 
plans to use the "skills, knowledge and record of success that he accumulated throughout his career 
working tori I[ _, and in executing his proposed 
endeavor. 
3 
The Petitioner offered numerous explanations for how his proposed endeavor is nationally important 
and will have a broad impact. For example, he claimed that his proposed endeavor has a realistic 
potential to create significant economic and societal benefit by attracting foreign capital to the United 
States. In addition, he stated that because it will attract substantial investment capital to the United 
States, his proposed endeavor will benefit the economy, improve capital markets, address the sharp 
decline of foreign investment into the United States, and create employment. 
In support, the Petitioner provided numerous media reports concerning the financial health of the 
United States and its economy in order to demonstrate how the decline of foreign investment in the 
United States has had a significant negative impact. He also submitted articles concerning how South 
Korea seeks foreign real estate and securities investments to improve their economy and finances. 
Further, he provided numerous letters of support from individuals working in the finance and 
investment industry both in government and in the private sector. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), which informed the Petitioner that, among other 
deficiencies, the evidence did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
Specifically, the Director noted that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the endeavor would 
have a wider economic impact, create a substantial number of jobs, or offer contributions to the 
advancement of the financial industry. In his RFE response, the Petitioner provided a new support 
letter, an opinion letter evaluating the proposed endeavor, additional media articles and reports on 
finances and investments, and a more in-depth explanation of his proposed endeavor. 
After a thorough review of the evidence, the Director concluded that it was insufficient to establish 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor because it did not demonstrate how the Petitioner's 
work would have an economic or job creation impact or affect the broader industry. The Director 
ultimately determined that the evidence did not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of"substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. We agree. 
While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each 
one.1 In our de nova review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. 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 
evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement by 
looking to evidence that documents the "potential prospective impact" of his work. To illustrate, "[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. 
1 We note that the Director's decision describes the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as an "electrical engineer." While we 
acknowledge this as an error, because the Director correctly engaged in a discussion of the Petitioner's evidence, we find 
it to have been a harmless one. 
4 
We examined the letters initially submitted and the additional letters submitted in the Petitioner's RFE 
response. The authors of the letters praise the Petitioner's personal and professional achievements and 
qualifications. They also note the importance of the finance and investment field. However, most 
authors do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or meaningfully demonstrate its national 
importance. For instance, _____ the vice president of the corporate management office of 
I I did not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, but instead described how 
the Petitioner's services in 2012 helped I I obtain favorable bond prices and attract additional 
investment capital. Although I I stated that the Petitioner's strategy allowed! to 
overcome traditional barriers to the ability of South Korean companies to raise capital through bonds, 
the evidence of record is insufficient to support a finding that the Petitioner's services positively 
impacted the nation as a whole, rather thanl specifically. 
The South Korean news article that discussed the transaction explained I I success and how 
the transaction may have influenced South Korea's credit rating, but the article did not mention the 
Petitioner as the specific individual who orchestrated the strategy behind it. While we acknowledge 
the four awards the Petitioner received from the Republic of South Korea's Ministry of Strategy and 
Finance commending the Petitioner on his contributions to the financial industry and the country's 
economy, the record does not include evidence showing that these awards are recognized beyond the 
presenting institution or indicative of influence on the field as a whole. Although the awards do briefly 
mention what made the Petitioner's contribution award-worthy, the record contains insufficient 
independent and objective evidence concerning how prestigious each award was, how many individuals 
competed for the award, or how the Ministry of Strategy and Finance determined who would receive 
the award. Even if we accept these awards as evidence indicative of the Petitioner's past impact in South 
Korea, this would not be evidence of how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would impact the United 
States. 
The author of another support letter, chief executive officer of an Asian branch 
of al private bank, offered his opinion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
could attract international investors and generate a flow of foreign capital into the United States, but 
he did not suggest that the proposed endeavor would impact the nation at a level commensurate with 
national importance. Instead, he suggested that the beneficiaries of the foreign capital would be U.S.­
based stakeholders who use the Petitioner's services . 
____ who serves as a director of global investment for a private securities company, 
submitted a letter containing his professional opinion of the proposed endeavor. He summarized 
generally accepted economic principles, as well as the effect that additional capital has on an economy 
and its job market to illustrate that the Petitioner's endeavor has the potential to benefit the economy 
and labor market on a general economic level. Specifically, I I stated that the proposed 
endeavor's services will create new cross-border investment transactions and financial solutions which 
will confer benefits beyond simple infusion of capital into the economy. He described the alternative 
assets that the Petitioner plans to work with and how his proposed endeavor is structured so as to 
enable the Petitioner to cover a wide geographical region. Concerning the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor,! lstated, in verbatim, the following: 
The process required to originate an alternative investment program makes his 
proposed endeavor to have a national implication in a way of attracting foreign 
5 
investment capital into different regions of the United States including economically 
depressed areas ... [The Petitioner] will help realization of unknown or overlooked 
value for the US company, business component, or projects taking place in various 
States of the nation ... [The Petitioner's] endeavor could play a critical role for 
financing vital projects which in return provide previously unavailable commercial 
activities or infrastructure that would improve American welfare at large. 
While we acknowledge! I belief that the effects of the proposed endeavor will benefit 
the U.S. economy and job market, we conclude that his evaluation does not sufficiently support a 
finding that the proposed endeavor will have an impact broader than basic economic activity already 
has in general. We conclude that generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact 
in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 
1990) (an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). The 
submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters so as to determine whether they support the 
petitioner's eligibility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (expert opinion 
testimony does not necessarily purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
general counsel and managing director of a global investment company, offered his 
high opinion of the Petitioner and the potential benefits his proposed endeavor could provide. For 
example, he stated that the Petitioner will take "full advantage of his professional understanding of 
various asset types, geographies, and management strategies that are optimized for his foreign investor 
clients. His services will undoubtedly add remarkable value to the financial institutions that work with 
him ... benefit[ting] both the American stakeholders looking to sell their assets as well as the buy­
side investors." This letter suggests that the primary impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will 
be for the benefit of foreign investor clients, the institutions that work with the Petitioner, American 
stakeholders looking to sell their assets, and the investors that buy the assets. Accordingly, we 
conclude that this letter does not support a finding that the Petitioner's endeavor stands to impact the 
United States at a level commensurate with national importance, as opposed to impacting the 
individual parties involved in the transactions. 
In his RFE response and on appeal, the Petitioner frequently directs our attention to the reports and 
articles submitted in support of the importance of the proposed endeavor. While the additional articles 
and reports provide helpful background information, they discuss the economic and job market 
struggles as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and possible solutions for its recovery. None of 
articles or reports in the record discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how it will have an 
impact so substantial as to rise to the level of national importance. While we acknowledge that the 
financial industry is important, that recognition does not necessarily establish the national importance 
of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In determining national importance, the relevant question is 
not the importance of the 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 l&N 
Dec at 889. 
Regarding his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner emphasized the nationwide reach of it by explaining 
that "an asset located one geography to another presents different scenarios on risk and return profile. 
For example, multi-unit residential complex in economically depressed area may be a better fit for a 
6 
given investor because of relatively less burden on making equity investment over similar asset type 
in near a metropolitan area" ( errors in original). He provided context for his proposed endeavor's 
impact to the economy by explaining his industry's practices. The Petitioner further explained that 
new capital entering an economy would create additional demand for products and services, which 
would trigger suppliers to respond by increasing production, which then would require suppliers to 
hire more people and invest more to meet the increased levels of production. While we acknowledge 
and understand the basic effects of supply and demand on an economy, the Petitioner has not 
adequately supported his contention that his proposed endeavor will have significance rising to a 
nationally important level. Although he explains that his services would greatly benefit thousands of 
U.S. firms, he has not identified thousands of firms interested in his services, nor has he provided 
sufficient evidence to conclude that his proposed endeavor would operate on such a large scale. We 
acknowledge that any offer of goods or services has the potential to impact the economy; however, 
this fact alone is insufficient to establish that the services the Petitioner plans to offer will benefit the 
U.S. economy, labor market, or financial industry on such a scale as to rise to the level of national 
importance. For instance, he has not provided evidence of how the "spillover effect" or economic 
"chain reaction" that he expects his proposed endeavor to set off would be substantial enough to affect 
tax revenues or Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 
The Director noted that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of any projected U.S. 
economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his proposed endeavor work. On appeal, the 
Petitioner claims that the Director merely considered the direct effects of his proposed endeavor and 
not the indirect impact. Upon review of the entire record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
provided sufficient evidence of direct or indirect impact. The Petitioner provided financial projections 
for his proposed endeavor, including the income and expenses his asset management firm will have in 
the next four years, as well as how many employees the Petitioner intends to hire. Although the 
Petitioner intends to directly create nine jobs for the people he will hire within his asset management 
firm, he has not explained how nine jobs would rise to the level of national importance or where these 
jobs would be located. Further, although he claimed that the proposed endeavor will create additional 
indirect jobs, he has not provided evidence of how this would occur. Instead, to support his 
contentions, he relies upon an explanation of how supply and demand functions in a capitalistic 
market. The Petitioner did not offer a foundation for his financial figures nor are they from an 
independent and objective source. He has not explained how he will achieve his projected level of 
income, which would necessarily depend on the number of institutional clients he plans to work with 
and their individual financial situations, as well as the location of the assets they seek to buy. As the 
record currently stands, these projections appear to be little more than conjecture. 
Although the Petitioner argues that the Director did not weigh and consider the evidence properly and 
that the Petitioner need not specify an exact location for his asset management firm, we conclude 
otherwise. To illustrate using the Petitioner's example, a South Korean investor may use the 
Petitioner's services to locate and finance a purchase of a multi-unit residential complex in an 
economically depressed area in the United States. Here, the Petitioner requests that USCIS assume, 
without sufficient corroborating evidence, that through various economic and market forces, the events 
of such a purchase will confer a benefit to the United States on a scale that rises to the level of national 
importance. The Petitioner has not identified the location of the complex or the location of the 
Petitioner's own asset firm, the interested parties, the location of the nine projected direct jobs, the 
location of any indirect jobs that will be created as a result of the complex or his firm, the tax 
7 
implications for those areas, or how the totality of the endeavor would bring revenue to those areas. 
We conclude that even if the proposed endeavor is not bound by geographic location, this would not 
absolve the Petitioner of his burden to provide evidence of the endeavor's claimed impact. 
In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. While the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor may confer a benefit to the individual parties involved, the Petitioner 
has not established how these transactions or multiple transactions of this kind would impact the U.S. 
economy or financial industry at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner must 
support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected 
U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits 
to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's projects would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. 
The documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. Because the 
identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the second and third Dhanasar 
prongs. 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on 
appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8