dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 22, 2023 In Re: 29156381 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneurial financial manager, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or of exceptional ability, 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 employment based second preference (EB-2) 
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. See Poursina v. USCIS, 936 
F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa'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 petition 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. 
Whilst 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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that USCIS may as a matter of discretion 
grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the labor certification, to a petitioner 
classified in the EB-2 category if they demonstrate that (1) the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance, (2) 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petition to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, indicate 
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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
Whilst the Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, the Director concluded the Petitioner's substantially meritorious proposed endeavor 
was not of national importance, nor were they well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor 
such that on balance a waiver of the requirement of a job offer and labor certification would be 
beneficial to the United States. 
Our authority over USCIS service centers, the office that adjudicated the immigrant petition, is 
comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. So based on a de novo 
review we will adopt and affirm the Director's decision that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
their proposed endeavor had potential prospective impact rising to a level of national importance. See 
Matter o_fBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994); see also Prado-Gonzalez v. INS, 75 F.3d 631, 
632 (11th Cir. 1996) (joining "every court of appeals that has considered this issue" holding that an 
appellate body may affirm the lower court's decision for the reasons set forth therein); Giday v. INS, 
113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below 
has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"). 
2 
The Director gave individualized consideration to the evidence the Petitioner submitted with their 
initial petition and their RFE response. 1 We agree with the Director's well-reasoned decision that the 
Petitioner does not qualify for a national interest waiver. In Dhanasar, we 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. The broader implications 
of the proposed endeavor, national and/or international, can inform us of the proposed endeavor's 
national importance. That is not to say that the implications are viewed solely through a geographical 
lens. Broader implications can reach beyond a particular proposed endeavor's geographical locus and 
focus. The relevant inquiry is whether the broader implications apply beyond just narrowly conferring 
the proposed endeavor's benefit. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have had them function 
as a financial manager in their entrepreneurial entity. The Petitioner identified the beneficial impact 
to the national interest of their proposed endeavor through broader benefits to the U.S. economy by 
providing financial guidance to help small business owners. But the record did not adequately 
demonstrate that these benefits, even if realized, would impact their field beyond the individuals 
utilizing their services or employed in the furtherance of their endeavor. And whilst the Petitioner 
expressed a nascent intention to establish their proposed endeavor in a Small Business Administration 
(SBA) designated HUBZone, the record does not adequately establish the parameters the SBA 
considers in establishing HUBZones. So we cannot evaluate whether the underutilized business zones 
the SBA identifies are akin to the economically depressed areas within which creating employment 
could be a potential positive economic effect. 2 Consequently the record as it is currently composed 
does not indicate that these prospective benefits rose to a level of national importance either through 
their broader implications influencing matters in the national interest or potential positive economic 
effects, such as influencing greater employment levels in historically high unemployment areas. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 
consideration of the remaining prongs of Dhanasar would serve no legal purpose. So we hereby 
reserve them. See 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"); see also Matter 
ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an 
1 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 The HUBZone program's goal is to promote business growth in underutilized business zones with the goal of awarding 
3% of federal contract dollars to companies that are HUBZone ce1tified. Joining the HUBZone program makes a business 
eligible to compete for certain federal contracts in the "set-aside" category. There are several required qualifications to 
participate in the program, but the most dispositive requirement for purposes of our analysis is that the business seeking to 
participate in the HUBZone program must be at least 51 % owned by U.S. citizens, a community development corporation, 
an agricultural cooperative, an Alaska Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. Whilst it is 
unknown and the record is silent about what if any federal programs exist in the "set-aside" category for endeavors like 
the one proposed by the Petitioner, the record is crystal clear that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be wholly 
owned and controlled by the Petitioner and that the Petitioner is not a U.S. citizen, a community development corporation, 
an agricultural cooperative, an Alaska Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. Based on 
the record, it appears the Petitioner would not be eligible to participate in the HUBZone program administered by the SBA. 
3 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). We conclude that the Petitioner does not merit a favorable exercise 
of discretion to waive the requirement of a job offer, and therefore a labor certification. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4