dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 31, 2023 In Re: 28102055 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial consultant, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director did not determine whether 
the Petitioner qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptional ability or, in the alternative, 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. However, the Director concluded that 
the Petitioner had not established 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. 53 7, 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. 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. 
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). Dhanasar states that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance; (2) that 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director did not address whether the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference 
classification either 
as an individual of exceptional ability or as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. See section 203(b )(2) of the Act. However, 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 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). 
Initially, the Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan "to continue delivering her expertise in 
[f]inancial and [c]redit [m]anagement [c]onsulting through her employment atl I I t The Petitioner farther stated that, through her endeavor, she would: 
be able to implement efficient business and finance strategies to assist overextended 
credit users eliminate high interest rate credit card debt; enhance [her employer's] 
clients' financial stability; and effectively assess their debts, budget, and credit so they 
can identify the best way to get out of debt in their respective situations. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence RFE the Petitioner reiterated her job duties as a 
financial consultant employed by She also asserted that her 
endeavor-continuing to work as a financial consultant employed by
I ~"has national importance because I can help make people ~e_v_e-ry____,,d,....a_y_t_o...,i,....m_p_r_o_v_e_t...,.h_e..,...ir-1,....,.iv-es~ 
and educate the population to access the many credit options while also improving the economy of the 
U.S." 
The Director provided directly conflicting statements regarding whether the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit. On page 2 of 4, the Director asserted, "The [P]etitioner has established that her 
endeavor has substantial merit." However, on page 3 of 4, the Director concluded, "The documentary 
evidence submitted does not support the [P]etitioner's statements that the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit in an area such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, 
2 
education, the arts, or social sciences. Therefore, the [P]etitioner has not established that the proposed 
endeavor is of substantial merit." 
We need not determine whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit because, regardless, the 
Director also concluded, "the [P]etitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor is of national 
importance," also required by the first Dhanasar prong. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91; see 
also Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. More 
specifically, the Director observed that the "various news article[ s ]" the Petitioner submitted are "not 
relevant to establish national importance." The Director further concluded that the record did not 
satisfy the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the generalized articles about the finance industry in the record 
addressed by the Director "collectively underscores the importance of [the Petitioner's] role by 
highlighting the critical contributions of her proposed endeavor to society and the national~ yonomy." 
The Petitioner also quotes many entire paragraphs from opinion letters written by
I I an assistant professor of accrunting rthe Universit~ Iand b 
I I an associate professor of finance at University, that she submitted in response to the 
1 
Director's RFE, which she asserts establish her proposed endeavor has national importance. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 
"specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first 
prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that have broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
We first note that the Petitioner's focus on generalized articles about the finance industry on appeal is 
misplaced. The Petitioner asserts on appeal, "While the articles may not directly mention [the 
Petitioner's] work, they highlight the importance and significance of the industry and field in which 
she operates." However, as noted above, the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which 
an individual will work is not the relevant question for determining national importance; rather, the 
relevant focus is on the "specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See id. at 889. 
Because the generalized articles about the finance industry in the record do not address the Petitioner 
and her proposed endeavor, they do not establish how the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake 
may have national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. 
In tum, although the opinion letters from .______________ _.purport to discuss the 
Petitioner, they instead provide generalizations about the finance industry, consumer credit, the roles 
of financial consultants, and similar topics that do not focus on the "specific endeavor that the 
[noncitizen] proposed to undertake." See id. Moreover, even to the extent that the opinion letters 
mention the Petitioner rather than merely providing generalizations about industries and occupational 
duties, they do not explain how the specific endeavor may have "national or even global implications 
within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or 
medical advances" or broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
3 
... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. 
at 889-90. 
On the contrary, the Petitioner's description of the proposed endeavor emphasizes its benefit to her 
employer and its clients, stating that it will "enhance [her employer's] clients' financial stability; and 
effectively assess [her employer's clients'] debts, budget, and credit so [her employer's clients] can 
identify the best way to get out of debt in their respective situations." Although providing financial 
consulting services to the Petitioner's employer's clients will benefit her employer and its clients, the 
record does not establish how the proposed endeavor will have "national or even global implications 
within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or 
medical advances" or implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. 
We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record establishes that the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, also required by the first Dhanasar prong, and whether the record satisfies the second 
or third Dhanasar prong. See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-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. 
4