dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Engineering

MATTER OF D-F-D-M-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 16, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a financial engineer, seeks se_cond preference 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 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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, finding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, but that he had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, 
and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner appealed the matter to us, and we dismissed the appeal. 1 The matter is now before us 
on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. For the reasons discussed below, we will deny the 
motions. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and a motion to reopen 
is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requi~ements of a motion to reconsider are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), and the requirements of a motion to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. 
§ l 03.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
1 See Maller of D-F-D-M-. ID# I 03 7887 (AAO Mar. 16, 2018). 
.
Malter of D-F-D-M-
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner intends ·to work as a consultant offering financial engineering services to clients. In 
response to the Director's request for evidence, he stated that he had recently begun working as a 
financial consultant for and he described several projects for which 
he expects to provide financial engineering consulting services. He explained that these projects 
involved developing a financial restructuring plan for (a Brazilian aircraft manufacturer) to 
attract investors and begin U.S. operations; financial planning for the development of a medical unit for 
(a pharmaceutical research company); a financial restructuring plan for 
to develop three new units providing full-service preventative medical care; deve~oping a 
financial plan for and conducting financial research on the production and 
distribution costs for a new assembly plant for (a Brazilian poultry equipment 
manufacturer). In our prior decision, we determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, which 
offers economic benefits to his clients through financial engineering services, has substantial merit,· but 
that he had not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor is of national" importance. 2 Accordingly, he 
did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
On motion, that Petitioner argues that our findings are an incorrect application of Dhanasar's first 
prong. He contends that his "work is specifically in projects that will create new jobs in the United 
States" and that our conclusion that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 
his proposed endeavor is of "national importance is clearly erroneous under Dhanasar." In 
Dhanasar, we noted that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it 
has national or even global implications within a particular field." We also stated 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 asserts that the aforementioned 
statement shows that "[t]he creation of new jobs is clearly in the 'national interest' as defined by 
Dhanasar." 
The Petitioner's motion focuses on proposed job creation resulting from various consulting projects 
he will undertake on behalf of . However, he has not shown that the wider economic 
effects he is claiming are implications of his specific proposed endeavor to provide financial 
engineering services for this company's clients. In determining national importance, we focus on the 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 889. The Petitioner asserts that the national importance of his endeavor is evident from the scale 
of the job-creating projects in which he plays a role. But he has not demonstrated that the economic 
2 We found "that the proposed endeavor in this case would not sufficiently extend beyond the Petitioner's clients to impact 
the fields of infrastructure, health care delivery, aviation manufacturing, or low income housing more broadly than a single 
plant, clinic, or project." Furthennore, we stated that he had not shown that "his work would have broader implications for 
the field of financial engineering." 
2 
.
Maller of D-F-D-M-
implications of these larger projects would be attributable to his own role as a financial engineering 
consultant to an extent that his proposed work holds national importance. 
With respect to the airplane manufacturing project3, the Petitioner states: "although the 
manufacturing plant may be in one state, the manufacturing plant draws on hundreds of suppliers 
from around the United States, leading to economic benefits around the country." 4 In addition to the 
project, the Petitioner indicates that he will offer financial engineering services to multiple 
other clients' projects. He does not provide sufficient information and evidence regarding his specific 
plans for each undertaking , or explain how his time will be divided among them. Furthermore, 
while the record includes a "Statemet [sic] of Economic Results" and cash flow projections based on 
a $500,000.00 investment in 5, the Petitioner has not shown how these metrics demonstrate 
that his endeavor will offer substantial economic benefits to any particular region in the United 
States. Despite the Petitioner's assertion that his proposed work involves "creating jobs all around the 
country," the record does not include sufficient evidence regarding any projected U.S. job creation 
attributable to his financial engineering work. The record does not show that benefits to the regional or 
national economy resulting from the Petitioner's specific work for and his other listed 
consulting projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner has not met the requirements for a motion to reconsider as he has not demonstrated that 
we erred in our previous analysis based on the record before us on appeal. Further, the motion to 
reconsider does establish that our previous findings were based on an incorrect application of the law, 
regulation, or USCIS policy. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
In support of the motion to reopen, the Petitioner presents a letter from . president of 
discussing his company's need for the Petitioner to work on a new consulting project 
involving states: "For the project, we will employ three 
employees. . . . The project is already in process and our contract with runs for the next six 
months, so we need to employ the services of [the Petitioner] now."6 While indicates 
that the Petitioner "has been involved in the finance engineering structure because of his experience 
3 While the Petitioner argues on motion that his proposed work on the project is of national importance, his request 
for reconsideration does not specifically explain how our findings relating to 
were based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy. 
q In support of the national importance of his proposed work with the Petitioner previously submitted infonnation 
discussing the role of aerospace manufacturing in "fostering regional and national economic prosperity." He also provided 
excerpts from testimony from a hearing of the U.S. Department of Transportation stating that aviation manufacturing is a 
"critical sector of our nation's economy." We note, however, that the record does not include evidence from 
indicating that the company intends to open and operate an airplane manufacturing plant in the United States. 
5 This documentation describes a "[m]anufacturing site in Brazil in newer and better facilities, with room enough, ready to 
ramp up production" (emphasis added), but it does not discuss plans for a U.S.-based aircraft manufacturing plant. 
6 The Petitioner's motion includes infonnation about (founded in 1991) business opportunities, corporate 
structure, manufacturing capacity, research and development, products, sales, and marketing. 
3 
.
Maller of D-F-D-M-
in health-related projects" and that is projecting $220 million of revenues in 2022, the 
record does not include evidence from explaining the significance of the Petitioner's 
prospective role as a financial engineer on this project, or demonstrating that his work has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or offers other substantial positive economic effects for the nation. 
The Petitioner also submits letters of support from three additional prospective clients and 
information about their business operations. For example, asserts that he is 
"currently in the process of planning for and starting a 
Florida. This new clinic is projected to create 5 to 8 new professional jobs and $500,000 investment 
in healthcare area." notes that he relies on "the services of [the Petitioner] as a consultant 
Financial Engineer to develop a business plan and financial projections." In addition, 
a firm that invests in the energy sector, 
states that "energy-related fields are extremely complex and rely upon complex financial modeling 
and forecasting from experienced financial engineers like [the Petitioner.]" Finally, 
president of , a knife and cutlery manufacturer, explains that his company is 
"embarking on an expansion project in the USA for which we would like to contract [the 
Petitioner's] services as a consultant in financial engineering." further 
indicates that !,,is company needs the Petitioner "to implement a new, complex business operation 
model to handle the novel e-commerce subscription platform." 
Although the Petitioner's documentation reflects his intentions to provide a valuable service to 
prospective clients, he has not offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor 
is of national importance. To satisfy the national importance requirement, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate the "potential prospective impact" of his work. The Petitioner's motion, however, does 
not include sufficient information and evidence to establish that his proposed work as a_ consultant 
has implications beyond and its potential clients at a level adequate to establish the 
national importance of his endeavor. 7 For instance, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate how 
his future work as a consultant stands to affect the health care, energy, pharmaceutical, cutlery 
manufacturing, nutritional supplement, risk management, poultry equipment, aviation manufacturing, or 
low income housing industries. Nor does the record show, for instance, that the specific work the 
Petitioner proposes to undertake has wider implications in financial engineering field or for the U.S. 
economy. As the Petitioner has not established that his specific endeavor's prospective impact 
supports a finding of national importance, he has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's motion does not show that our previous decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and does not overcome the grounds underlying our previous decision. As 
the Petitioner has not met the requisite three pr~ngs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
7 In Dhanasar, we detennined 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. 
4 
Malter of D-F-D-M-
find that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
CiteasMallerofD-F-D-M-.1D# 1641711 (AAOOct.16,2018) 
5