dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 16, 2024 In Re: 33359851 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of 
exceptional ability, 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 the Petitioner was eligible for the requested national interest waiver. 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 determined that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 immigrant classification as an advanced 
degree professional, but did not establish her eligibility for a national interest waiver under the 
Dhanasar framework. For the reasons set forth below, we agree that the Petitioner has not established 
eligibility for the requested national interest waiver and dismiss the appeal. 
The first Dhanasar 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 a range of 
areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or 
education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit as it falls within the range of areas 
contemplated in Dhanasar, namely business. See id. However, we also agree that the Petitioner has 
not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance. 
The Petitioner stated that she intended to work in the United States as a financial manager to "provide 
[her] specialized services to impact the field through innovation," and "to focus [her] contributions on 
working in [r]elationship [m]anagement, [i]nvestment, [p]eople [m]anagement, and [t]inancial 
[d]epartrnents areas to benefit [f]inancial [i]nstitutions and clients." According to the Petitioner's 
initial professional plan, she planned to provide several specialized financial services using data 
analytics, business intelligence, and financial planning and forecasting, which would ultimately "bring 
significant benefits to both individuals and businesses alike, lead[ing] to a better financial future for 
all parties." Additionally, the Petitioner stated she would "make significant contributions to the field," 
and "potentially generate economic growth and contribute toward the advance[ment] and optimization 
of the U.S. market." In support of her endeavor, the Petitioner provided a personal statement outlining 
her professional plans, an expert opinion letter, and letters of recommendation from the petitioner's 
former colleagues attesting to her expertise and success in the financial management field. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) requesting additional evidence on the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, she submitted a new professional plan clarifying 
that, as a financial manager, she intended to "boost the operational efficiency and growth of the U.S. 
banking sector, focusing on the strategic application of data analytics." She added that she intended 
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 
to work with U.S. companies to provide services in financial management, franchise management, 
customer relationship management, and people management. In order to support her customers, she 
planned to rely on her expertise in investments; financial reports and financial data; financial planning 
and retirement planning; investment management and wealth management; excel, financial modeling, 
and forecasting; tax strategies; risk management and cost management; and negotiation and 
communication. Ultimately, she asserted that her work would broadly impact her industry and U.S. 
economy by enhancing the efficiency in the financial sector, and would also enhance societal welfare 
by enabling businesses to thrive and create new job opportunities. Additionally, the Petitioner 
supplemented the record with new reference letters detailing her experience in the field and her impact 
to her prior employers and customers. 
The Director concluded that, while the Petitioner had established the substantial merit of her endeavor, 
she did not establish its national importance because its prospective impact would not extend beyond 
her future employer(s) or her customers to lead to broader implications to the industry or field. 
Moreover, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that her endeavor had significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally asserts that the Director erred in their conclusion that the endeavor 
does not rise to the level of national importance contemplated in Dhanasar. In doing so, the Petitioner 
primarily relies on the same arguments she previously put forth in response to the Director's RFE, 
adding that her "innovative strategies in financial management, franchise management, and customer 
relationship management directly address critical issues faced not only by individual companies but 
also by the banking sector and the broader economy," and her work will enhance not only the financial 
health of institutions but also impact the entire banking sector both national and globally. The 
Petitioner also claims on appeal that the Director erred in not considering the projected growth in the 
franchise sector which establishes her endeavor would result in job creation and positive economic 
benefits. 
Upon de novo review, we agree that the record does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance. The Petitioner's claims on appeal 
primarily rely on the importance of the financial industry, rather than the prospective impact 
attributable to her specific endeavor. But in Dhanasar we said that, in determining national 
importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a 
petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed 
endeavor, noting that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has 
national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. 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. 
Although the Petitioner's statements in the record reflect her intention to provide valuable services to 
her future employer(s) and customers, the record does not support her assertions that her services will 
result in broader implications to the field, beyond the potential benefits to her immediate employer(s) 
or customers. While she asserts, for example, that her plans to focus on enhancing technological 
integration within the banking industry to reduce payment processing outages will impact the entire 
3 
banking industry, she has not explained how these services provided to her employer(s) or customers 
would otherwise impact the field more broadly. Likewise, her claims that her focus on standardizing 
financial practices and enhancing access to credit for franchises will contribute to global best practices 
in franchise management are not supported by the record. The Petitioner has not explained, for 
example, how any best practices adopted by her employer( s) or customers would otherwise lead to 
broader implications to the field. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific 
impact in the field have little probative value. 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). 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 too, we agree with the Director that the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her potential employer(s) or customers to impact the 
financial field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Similarly, while the Petitioner asserts on appeal that her work in customer relationship management 
(CRM) systems will result in "profound implications for societal welfare in the United States," she 
has not explained how her specific endeavor will impact societal welfare. Rather, she primarily 
describes the benefits and goals of CRM systems generally. A petitioner must support assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The record also does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor "has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area." See Dhanasar at 890. While the Petitioner asserts that, through her focus on franchise 
management, she will emerge as a key player in fostering economic growth and employment 
opportunities, she supports this assertion by relying on the cumulative economic benefits of the 
franchising industry, rather than her individual endeavor. Although any basic economic activity has 
the potential to positively impact a local economy and increase tax revenue, the Petitioner has not 
provided projected employment numbers and revenue growth contributable to her endeavor to 
establish how her endeavor will impact the area of intended operations, nor has she provided evidence 
that her endeavor will impact an economically depressed area. 
And we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner's assertions regarding a claimed 
shortage in her field do not establish the national importance of her specific endeavor. The national 
interest waiver is not intended to address labor shortages. A shortage of qualified professionals alone 
does not render the work of an individual financial manager nationally important under the Dhanasar 
precedent decision. Several of the Petitioner's claims of national importance could reasonably apply 
to any financial manager in the field who has a positive impact on their employer's operations, but 
Congress did not provide a blanket exemption for financial managers with respect to the job offer and 
labor certification requirement 
Additionally, the testimonial evidence in the record, including the expert opinion letter from Dr. S-S­
and the letters of recommendation, provide little probative value in establishing the national 
importance of the Petitioner's endeavor. For instance, while Dr. S-S- concludes that the Petitioner's 
work is in the national importance, because "financial managers play a critical role in the United 
States' economy," they do not elaborate on how the Petitioner's individual work will result in broader 
implications to her field or otherwise result in substantial economic benefits. Moreover, the letters 
4 
primarily discuss the Petitioner's expertise and professional background, while providing little 
analysis of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. While we recognize that the Petitioner has 
had a successful career, a petitioner's expertise and record of success 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 Petitioner has demonstrated the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as 
expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS 
is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a noncitizen's eligibility. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. 
Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight 
that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). 
Here, much of the content of the expert opinion letter and recommendation letters lack relevance with 
respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the identified reason for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the Petitioner's remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar 
framework, as well as a determination as to whether the Petitioner has met the requirements of EB-2 
classification. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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 otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5