dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 19, 2024 In Re: 33461632 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an advanced degree professional, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement attached to this classification. 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 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. 
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 r equirement "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 l&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 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. at 889. 
11. ANALYSIS 
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 arange 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. 
Id. The tenn "endeavor" is more specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details 
not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to 
undertake specifically within that occupation. For example, while engineering is an occupation, the 
explanation of the proposed endeavor should describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of 
engineering in which the person will work, rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of 
an engineer. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The Director determined that while the Petitioner established that the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, she did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance as set forth 
under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We agree, for the reasons explained 
below. 
The Petitioner asserts that her proposed endeavor is to develop "a financial and pricing consulting 
services firm that provides business and financial structuring of start-ups and SMES, financial 
management of SMES2 and pricing/revenue analysis of company product portfolio planned to be 
headquartered in Utah with two business units in Nevada and Arizona." She further asserts that she 
will establish her firm in SBA HUBZone areas to "help fuel small business growth in historically 
underutilized business zones," thereby "generating jobs for U.S. workers in these underutilized areas, 
improving the wages and working conditions for the U.S. workers, helping the local community bring 
investments to the region and economic development." The Petitioner's business plan states that the 
firm's projected total wage payment is $3.24 million within the first five years with the creation of 26 
direct jobs, "potentially boosting local businesses, increasing consumer spending, and enhancing the 
overall economic vitality of these states." She states that her "deep financial and pricing consulting 
expertise is expected to bring innovative practices and cutting-edge methodologies to the sector;" 
"elevate the standards within the industry but also provide clients with more efficient and effective 
financial strategies;" and potentially "transform practices within the field, setting new benchmarks for 
quality and efficiency." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "did not give due regard to the following pieces of 
evidence: [her] resume, which outlines her vast experience in the field of endeavor; [her] Business 
Plan, which extensively describes her credentials, expertise, and professional accomplishments, and 
2 "SME" is a common acronym in the business world, referring to small and medium enterprises that maintain revenues, 
assets, or a number of employees below a certain threshold. 
2 
allows concrete projections of the benefits she may offer to the U.S.; [e]vidence of [her] work in the 
field, which demonstrates her vast contributions in her field; [l]etters of recommendation; and 
[i]ndustry reports and articles, demonstrating the national importance of [her] proposed endeavor; as 
well as the steep shortage in the U.S. of professionals with her profile in the field." She further asserts 
that "the benefit generated to the United States from [her] prospective contributions to financial 
consulting will be concrete and substantial, even if other U.S. workers are available." 
Here, the record does not show the prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor 
beyond her own clients for which she would provide her services. While the Petitioner asserts that 
her endeavor will not only increase her clients' profitability but also has the "potential to create 
substantial economic impact through direct and indirect job creation, particularly in economically 
underdeveloped or recovering regions," she has not demonstrated how her specific consulting business 
would help enough clients increase profitability or create enough jobs to exert a national economic 
impact. Although the Petitioner's business plan projects that her firm will generate $3.24 million in 
revenue and create 26 jobs during the first five years - these projections do not indicate that the 
business would affect the economy at a regionally or nationally important level. Further, her business 
plan does not demonstrate how her business would benefit an economically depressed area or how the 
benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her endeavor would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, while the 
Petitioner claims that her firm will elevate the standards within the industry and potentially transform 
practices within the field, she has not established this claim through independent and objective 
evidence. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have 
little probative value,3 and here, the Petitioner has not shown with sufficient evidence how her 
proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her potential clients or the industry or fields 
that her clients are involved in. 
In the present case, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence, aside from claims in her 
statements and business plan, that her business's activities stand to provide substantial economic 
benefits to the region of Utah/Nevada/Arizona or the United States. Thus, while the Petitioner's 
financial and pricing consulting services may "contribute" to economic growth, she has not 
demonstrated that her specific business - alone - would have national implications for the U.S. 
economy, the Utah/Nevada/Arizona region, or the financial consulting field. We recognize the 
importance of the accounting and financial services industry and of small businesses to the U.S. 
economy; however, the economic benefits that the Petitioner claims will result from her endeavor 
depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie 
between her proposed business's financial services work and the claimed economic results. 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
3 See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
3 
reached"); 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4