dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 24, 2023 In Re: 27490008 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial analyst, seeks second preference immigrant classification as an individual 
of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 
EB-2 immigrant classification . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 
U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. In 
addition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. 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 l&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 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 . Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner first demonstrates qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification , they must 
then demonstrate 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 that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 1, grant 
a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows : 
1 See also 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 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner initially filed the national interest waiver application asserting that the Petitioner 
qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. However, in response to 
the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner claimed that he also meets the qualification 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
In the decision, the Director did not address whether the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but only concluded that the 
Petitioner does not qualify as an individual of exceptional ability. 2 See section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
Because we nevertheless find that the record does not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a 
job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest, we reserve our opinion 
regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies second-preference eligibility criteria. See id.; see also 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"); 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). 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that he meets the eligibility for the national interest waiver and 
offers documents previously submitted in response to the Director's RFE. The Petitioner also claims 
that the Director's conclusion on the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest waiver was 
inaccurate as it was based on documentation related to an applicant who works in the field of aviation, 
not related to the Petitioner's endeavor as a financial analyst. 
We note that the Director's reference to the "field of aeronautics" or "mechanical aeronautics" 
originated from the Petitioner's initial letter dated August 1, 2022, which included some pages that 
belonged to another petitioner who works as an aircraft maintenance mechanic. While the Director 
referred twice to "aeronautics" in analyzing the Dhanasar' s first prong, we determine that these 
references were not material to the Director's ultimate conclusion regarding the Petitioner's eligibility 
for the national interest waiver and the Director correctly evaluated the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
as a financial specialist. Hence, we will proceed with de novo review without considering the 
identified pages belonging to another petitioner in the record. 
Upon examination of the record including the Petitioner's academic credentials, resume, professional 
plan, letters of recommendation, expert opinion letters, certifications, and employment letters, we 
agree with the Director that the Petitioner did not satisfy Dhanasar's first prong, as discussed below. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake. 
2 While the Director found that the Petitioner met at least three of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), the record 
did not show in its totality that he had a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. 
2 
In his professional plan from July 2022, the Petitioner stated that he intends to "perform as a Financial 
Analyst" and "implement [his] refined set of skills in the most modem strategies and techniques of 
Financial Analysis in order to stimulate exponential growth to organizations and companies located in 
the United States." The Petitioner further explained that he will "help companies from different sectors 
to improve their internal processes and achieve their goals more effectively, especially in the current 
economic and social scenario in which businesses are still trying to recover from the impacts caused 
by the COVID-19 pandemic" and his proposed endeavor is to "offer [his] vast experience in i) financial 
management, ii) financial planning, and iii) market expansion, specifically focusing on the 
automobilist industry providing financial solutions so people, entrepreneurs, micro-entrepreneurs, 
people with special needs, and/or those who need to invest in their businesses can start their journeys." 
The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, 
science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner 
refers to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and other industry reports to demonstrate that the financial 
analyst profession provides important benefits to the United States and the finance industry is expected 
to grow. As the Petitioner's endeavor involves business and financial management, the record 
sufficiently demonstrates substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. 
However, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor meets the national importance 
element under the first prong of Dhanasar. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential 
prospective impact" and "broader implications" of the proposed endeavor showing that "[ a ]n 
undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." Id. at 889. On the contrary, the Petitioner claims on appeal 
that we should evaluate the prospective impact of his endeavor based on his past achievements and 
experience. The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations under 
Dhanasar' s second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake 
has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 
The Petitioner's resume, certifications, and recommendation letters all address his past 
accomplishments as a financial specialist impacting his workplace and do not address national 
importance of his endeavor's "potential prospective impact." For instance, a letter from the 
Petitioner's former supervisor indicates that the Petitioner "had a remarkable performance providing 
financial consulting to the auto dealers" and "managed to achieve results beyond expectation, thus 
contributing to the satisfaction of the commercial partners." Another recommendation letter states 
that the Petitioner "is a unique professional, known by his peers, fellow competitors, . . . and an 
inspiration for his experience and training in the recovery of commercial results, leadership and people 
management, business consulting, and financial planning of large companies." While the 
recommendation letters indicate the high regard for the Petitioner and his work, they do not discuss 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or specific impact of his endeavor. 
One colleague highlights an example of how the Petitioner successfully assisted a company called 
Iduring its transition phase by implementing techniques to optimize resources, 
investing in cost-effective machinery, analyzing employee payroll, and optimizing the payment 
process. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level 
3 
I 
of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. We 
acknowledge that the Petitioner provided valuable financial services to his employers in the past, but 
the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor extends beyond the companies or clients that 
he will serve. 
In addition, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will 
substantially benefit the field of financial services, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a ]n undertaking 
may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within 
a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical 
advances." Id. Although the Petitioner claims that he has "unique set of skills" or "modem strategies 
and techniques of Financial Analysis," the proposed activities in his professional plan entail typical 
work of a financial analyst, such as financial planning, market analysis, managing assets and 
investments, monitoring customer's portfolio, performing quantitative research, and providing sound 
investment advice to generate long term returns for clients. The Petitioner claims that his proposed 
endeavor's results "are widely spread to others in the field" and his specific services are "deeply differ 
from the ones generally provided by ordinary Financial Specialists" but the record does not support 
these assertions. 
The Petitioner submitted two expert opinion letters, one from I Ian assistant professor of 
finance atl /University' sl lschool of Business, and I I a professor of finance 
atlUniversity. These opinion letters do not provide any corroborating details to show 
that the Petitioner's skills or methodologies differ from or improve upon those already available and 
in use in the United States. They merely reiterate the Petitioner's experience and abilities as a financial 
specialist and make general conclusory remarks about the proposed endeavor's prospective impact. 
For example,! lstates that the Petitioner's endeavor "has significant potential to generate 
tax revenue, strengthen U.S. companies, contributing to their growth and profits, and transfer his 
knowledge and skills to U.S. workers" but does not provide any persuasive details as to how he will 
accomplish such results. 
FurthermoreJ lstates that the Petitioner's background in Brazil "will vastly contribute 
to the trade sector" as the U.S. officially designated Brazil as a major non-NATO ally in 2019 and 
conclude that "the proposed endeavor impacts a matter that a government entity has described as 
having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives." However, the Petitioner has not 
submitted that he plans to specifically contribute to any trading between Brazil and the United States. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. 
Matter ofCaron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion 
or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way 
questionable. Id. Here, the advisory opinions are oflittle probative value as they do not meaningfully 
address the details of the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner contends that the rising demand and growing importance of the finance industry and 
profession, as well as the automobile market demonstrate national importance of his endeavor. 
Although we acknowledge that the Petitioner's work as a financial analyst is valuable and assisting 
businesses and clients to be financially successfully has substantial merit, merely working in an 
important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. In 
determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
4 
profession in which the individual will work; as previously stated, we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. 
In Dhanasar, we also noted 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. 
The Petitioner contends that by providing financial services to businesses and assisting companies to 
increase their profits, his endeavor "is a major economic contributor." Yet the Petitioner does not 
offer specific evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly 
attributable to his future work. While any basic economic activity has the potential to positively 
impact the economy, the record does not demonstrate how working for a company or companies as an 
individual financial analyst 3 generates such significant economic activity that rises to the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. 
While individual employer or clients may benefit from the endeavor, the Petitioner does not offer 
sufficient evidence for how this individual benefit rises to the level of national importance or will 
impact the field more broadly. Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner has not established that his 
proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is 
not eligible for a national interest waiver. We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record 
satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter of 
L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. As noted above, we also reserve our opinion regarding whether the 
record establishes the Petitioner is eligible for second-preference classification. See id. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 The Petitioner submitted a job offer letter for a financial planner position from company in Florida 
and a Linkedln email offer for another financial planner position at ,...I-----'----,-------' I I
5