dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Advising

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 30, 2024 In Re: 32372615 
Appeal of Texas Service Center 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that she is an advanced degree professional or eligible for a waiver of the job offer 
requirement 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The 
Director found that the Petitioner did not qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. Specifically, the Director determined that while the Petitioner has a foreign equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree, she did not establish that she has five years of progressive experience in the specialty. 
The Petitioner does not challenge this finding on appeal. 2 The Director also determined that the 
Petitioner did not establish that she met any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
With respect to her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner stated in her petition that she will "[ a ]dvise clients 
on financial plans using knowledge of tax and investment strategies, securities, insurance, pension plans, 
and real estate. Duties include assessing clients' assets, liabilities, cash flow, [ and] insurance." She stated 
in her initial cover letter that she "will assist companies and entrepreneurs by evaluating their current 
financial standing, forecasting and planning, identifying their target markets and resolving complex issues 
in their risk planning." She stated in her business plan that her company, 
willwill provide "Financial Advising With Real Estate Specialization Consulting Services and Property 
Management Services planned to be headquartered in Florida with two business units in Florida and 
Georgia." 
In addition to the business plan, the record includes, but is not limited to, articles and industry reports 
about financial advisors and the role of immigrants as entrepreneurs, and information from O*NET 
OnLine and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics related 
to personal financial advisors. Lastly, the record includes letters of recommendation, education 
records, potential client communication, company records, employer letters, a resume, an advisory 
evaluation letter, and immigration records. 
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). 
2 We will not address whether we agree with this finding as the determination that the proposed endeavor lacks national 
importance is dispositive of the appeal. 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 othe1wise 
ineligible). 
2 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established that the proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit, but she did not establish that it has national importance. The Director described the proposed 
endeavor and projected employee and revenue figures from the business plan. The Director noted the 
lack of sufficient detail underlying the projections and the company's impact on the field of finance 
or the U.S. economy commensurate with national importance. The Director determined that while the 
business plan mentions she will establish her company in a HUBZone, she did not provide evidence 
that her company would open locations in one or more economically depressed areas. Next, the 
Director mentioned there was no evidence, at the time the petition was filed, of the company being 
formed, the Petitioner owning it, and of communication with potential clients. The Director discussed 
the advisory evaluation letter and found it to be of little probative value due to not addressing the 
details of the proposed endeavor and why it has national importance. The Director noted that while 
the industry articles and reports showed the importance of financial advisors, the relevant issue is 
whether the proposed endeavor itself has national importance. 
Finally, the Director stated the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of the proposed 
endeavor's potential prospective impact, including broader implications, or national or global 
implications within the field; significant potential to employ U.S. workers; substantial economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed field; broad enhancement of societal welfare; or 
broad enhancement of cultural or artistic enrichment. Therefore, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor has national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erroneously imposed a stricter standard of proof With 
respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that they meet each eligibility 
requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what they claim is "more likely than 
not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the 
preponderance standard, USCIS considers not only the quantity, but also the quality (including 
relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 
77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, the Petitioner does not specifically identify statements in the 
Director's decision applying a higher standard of proof or imposing novel substantive and evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the Dhanasar framework. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide financial advisory services to her company's 
future clients, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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. Here, we conclude the 
Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company 
and its clientele to impact her field, the financial advising industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly 
at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director did not give due regard to her business plan, resume, evidence of 
her work in the field, letters of recommendation, and industry reports and articles. The Petitioner's 
business plan includes industry and market analyses, information about the company and its services, 
3 
financial forecasts and projections, marketing strategies, a discussion of the Petitioner's education and 
work experience, and a description of company personnel. Regarding future staffing, the Petitioner's 
business plan anticipates that her company will employ 7 employees in year one, 8 in year two, 14 in 
year three, 16 in year four, and 24 in year five, but she did not elaborate on these projections or provide 
evidence supporting the need for these additional employees. Furthermore, while her business plan 
offers revenue projections of $325,000 in year one, $425,000 in year two, $700,000 in year three, 
$750,000 in year four, and $1,125,000 in year five, these projections are not supported by details 
showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved. 
The Petitioner mentions that she has developed theoretical experience through her bachelor's and master's 
degrees from Brazil, she has 29 years of experience in the finance industry, and she is a member of the 
Regional Board of Business Administration of Minas Gerais and the National Association of Women 
Sales Professionals. The Petitioner references several business-related positions she has held. The record 
includes multiple letters of support discussing her work experience, as well as her education records. 
The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in her field, however, relate to the second prong of 
the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, however, focuses on the proposed endeavor 
and not on the Petitioner's education and prior work in the field. The national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands separate and apart from her education, skills, and job 
experience. 3 
Additionally, the Petitioner refers to previously submitted evidence, which includes articles and 
industry reports about financial advisors and the role of immigrants as entrepreneurs, and information 
from O*NET OnLine and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage 
Statistics, as evidence of the importance of financial advisors in every type of business. She asserts 
that the articles demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor due to its economic 
implications. However, the issue here is not the national importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which the individual will work; rather we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner has not established that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our 
nation. Specifically, she has not demonstrated that her company's future staffing levels and business 
activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida, Georgia, or the United States. While 
the Petitioner claims that her company has growth potential, she has not presented 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. In addition, although 
the Petitioner asserts that her endeavor stands to generate jobs for U.S. workers, she has not offered 
sufficient evidence that her endeavor offers Florida, Georgia, or the United States a substantial 
economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. 
The Petitioner has not provided evidence demonstrating that her proposed financial advisory business 
would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an 
endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to 
3 See Dhanasar at 890. 
4 
substantiate such claims. Furthermore, while any basic economic act1v1ty has the potential to 
positively affect the economy to some degree, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the potential 
prospective impact of her proposed endeavor stands to offer broader implications in her field or to 
generate substantial positive economic effects in the region where her company will operate or in other 
parts of the United States. 
The Petitioner has not established that she meets the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. Therefore, she has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this 
issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate 
arguments regarding her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. See 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5