dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 6, 2025 In Re: 36817827 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a multinational healthcare manufacturing organization, seeks second preference 
immigrant classification (EB-2) for the Beneficiary, a financial manager, as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 
8 U.S.C. § l l 53(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
that is attached to this EB-2 classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
l 153(b )(2)(B)(i). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer 
requirement 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&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. 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 beneficiary must first qualify 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)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner demonstrates the beneficiary ' s eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they 
must then establish that the beneficiary merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in 
the national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), 
provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that 
USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates 
that: 
• The beneficiary's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The beneficiary is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner established that a 
waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner initially stated that the Beneficiary would continue his work implementing Enterprise 
Resource Planning (ERP) software for financial management purposes at one of the I 
U.S. facilities, I -one of dozens operated by the company throughout the world. The 
Petitioner provided the following summary of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor: 
[The Beneficiary] is an expert in implementing financial management and accounting 
software into business operations, whose ability to increase the accuracy and usefulness 
of financial reporting will benefit the U.S. by advancing the nation's scientific 
knowledge of advanced enterprise resource planning software and business intelligence 
reporting, which allows companies to optimize their operations, make important 
business decisions, and protect the security of their financial processes. As Sr. 
Accountant atl Ia leading manufacturer of pharmaceutical products, [the 
Beneficiary's] role involves technology, finance, and mathematics, which are 
quintessential elements of employment in the STEM [ science, technology, engineering, 
and mathematics] field. He will perform critical financial management and accounting 
duties atl lthat will have a significant impact on increasing operational 
efficiency at pharmaceutical manufacturers and improving system security. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner demonstrated the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit; the Director further concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
endeavor is of national importance. Upon review, for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that 
the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of the Beneficiary's endeavor 
in order to establish his eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
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 a range of areas such 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in 
concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
I 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor and 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. Further, to evaluate whether the Beneficiary's 
proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting 
the "potential prospective impact" of his work. Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner has provided letters of support from executive leadership and colleagues at the 
Petitioner's company discussing the Beneficiary's knowledge of the company and his contributions to 
its financial management goals; however, these letters do not provide specific information concerning 
how his proposed endeavor to continue his work at thel Ilocation will, as stated generally 
above, "[allow] companies to optimize their operations, make important business decisions, and 
protect the security of their financial processes." Although the letters of support laude the 
Beneficiary's qualifications and experience, they do not illuminate how the Beneficiary's proposed 
endeavor would be of national importance to the United States. We note that evidence of work 
experience generally relates not to the national importance of an endeavor, as discussed in the first 
prong of Matter ofDhanasar, but to the second prong, 2 which evaluates whether an individual is well 
positioned to advance an endeavor. 
The Petitioner also has provided reports and articles discussing the pharmaceutical manufacturing 
industry, as well as the importance and potential applications of ERP within a variety of business 
sectors. The Petitioner included documentation outlining government initiatives concerning domestic 
vaccine development capabilities, U.S. competitiveness, and STEM talent. Although the Petitioner 
asserts that the Beneficiary's endeavor will further certain objectives described in this documentation, 
the material itself does not provide sufficient insight into how the Beneficiary's specific intent to 
continue work at one of the company's locations in the United States will, for example, "benefit the 
U.S. by advancing the nation's scientific knowledge of advanced enterprise resource planning 
software and business intelligence reporting." While this documentation relates to the area in which 
the Beneficiary intends to work, it does not speak to how specific work conducted by the Beneficiary 
would have a potential prospective impact of national importance. 
Regarding the material relating to STEM, which the Petitioner submits as evidence to support the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor, USCIS Policy Manual guidance provides that an 
endeavor rooted in STEM may have national importance when the evidence sufficiently demonstrates 
that it would help the United States to remain ahead of strategic competitors or current and potential 
2 Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, determinations 
concerning the second and third prongs are unnecessary to the ultimate decision; therefore, they will be reserved in this 
decision. 
3 
adversaries. 3 We may also determine that an endeavor in a STEM field has national importance when 
it relates to a field where appropriate activity and investment may contribute to the United States 
achieving or maintaining technology leadership or peer status among allies and partners. Here, the 
Petitioner has not explained how the proposed endeavor would position the United States ahead of 
other nations or achieve or retain technology leadership or peer status with other countries. While the 
Petitioner emphasizes the Beneficiary's knowledge and experience using ERP software, it has not 
described any technology the Beneficiary has developed that would potentially be advantageous for 
the United States. Further, although the Petitioner links the proposed endeavor's national importance 
to an asserted shortage of STEM talent, we observe that shortages in a field are not alone sufficient to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's endeavor stands to have an impact on the broader field or otherwise 
have implications rising to the level of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the evidence ofrecord establishes the Beneficiary's eligibility for 
a national interest waiver, including the national importance of his proposed endeavor to continue in 
his role at the company utilizing ERP software, asserting that "companies in the U.S. pharmaceutical 
industry will need to adopt advanced enterprise resource planning systems, in which the Beneficiary 
is an expert, in order to increase revenues and outperform foreign competitors." These and similar 
assertions made by the Petitioner found in the record do not explain how the Beneficiary's individual 
work atl Iwill impact the adoption or usage of ERP software by other pharmaceutical 
companies or how any positive outcomes in the pharmaceutical industry would result from the 
Beneficiary's work. Instead, the Petitioner's assertions rely on the concept of the national importance 
of the availability and reliability of efficient domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing, and they 
repeatedly imply that the Beneficiary's continued work using ERP software to manage the company's 
finances at its I !location will generally benefit the pharmaceutical industry. 
For example, following an explanation of how the Beneficiary specializes in ERP systems, which the 
company has implemented not only at their I I location, but within "the business operations of 
their facilities across the globe," the Petitioner ties the Beneficiary's endeavor to continue his work at 
the I I location to general national interests, stating, "Moreover, by improving the overall 
operations and manufacturing capacity of U.S. pharmaceutical companies, the United States will 
lessen its dependence on foreign manufacturers for critical drug ingredients and medicines." Here, 
again, the Petitioner has not provided an explanation or any probative evidence to demonstrate how 
the Beneficiary's work with the company would impact a field or industry on a national level. A 
petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
Further, the Petitioner did not specifically describe how the Beneficiary would undertake an endeavor 
of a scale that would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Beyond assertions that the Beneficiary's work has and will continue to benefit 
the company financially, the Petitioner has not provided evidence of any resulting positive impact to 
the U.S. economy; the Petitioner does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor would 
extend beyond its own business interests to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2). 
4 
Beyond general assertions, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's endeavor stands 
to have an impact on the broader field or otherwise have implications rising to the level of national 
importance. The Petitioner here has not properly documented how the Beneficiary's continued work 
at the company would impact the field of pharmaceutical manufacturing more broadly. In addition, 
the possible importance of addressing a perceived shortage of STEM talent in a particular field does 
not confer national importance on the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor to work in a STEM field. 
Again, in determining national importance within the Dhanasar framework, the relevant question is 
not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work, but the 
specific endeavor that the individual will undertake. Id. at 889. 
Because the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor is of national 
importance as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Beneficiary is not 
eligible for a national interest waiver. As the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding 
eligibility under the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
( 1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are 
unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for or otherwise merits 
a national interest waiver. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5