dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 28, 2024 In Re: 30114757 
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 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 Petitioner had not 
established eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability and that a waiver of the required job offer, 
and thus of the 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
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. 
1 See also 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a financial manager, specializing in financial 
planning and analysis. The Petitioner states that she will apply her "more than 1 7 years of accumulated 
experience to provide consulting services for a U.S. financial company in financial planning and 
analysis to help businesses across the United States to maximize corporate profit" and "provide 
differentiated services that achieve financial health of an organization." Her endeavor includes 
"overseeing financial planning & analysis (FP&A) functions, making recommendations on mergers 
and acquisitions, obtaining funding, working with department heads to analyze financial data and craft 
budgets, and attesting to the accuracy of reports and consulting with boards of directors and the CEO 
of strategy." Additionally, she states she plans to support decisions related to tax laws and regulations 
that are specific to the organization or industry she plans to work for and "analyzing data and advising 
senior managers on ways to maximize profit." 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 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, including business and entrepreneurialism. In determining whether 
the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not have substantial merit or 
national importance. However, evidence in the record establishes that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit and we withdraw the Director's determination to the contrary. 
Turning to the national importance of her endeavor, the Petitioner contends that USCIS did not 
consider how it "will have broader implications on the business and financial fields, positively impact 
an economically depressed area and to help business across the United States to maximize corporate 
profit." The Petitioner references her professional plan and relies, in large part, on her education and 
her over 17 years of experience in the financial management industry. However, the Petitioner's 
expertise and record of success in previous positions 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, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national 
importance of her proposed work. 
Although the Petitioner's professional plan reflects her intention to provide consulting services to 
financial companies, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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, we conclude that 
the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
her future customers and/or employer(s) to impact the financial management industry more broadly at 
a level commensurate with national importance. 
Regarding the articles about the importance of the financial management industry and the Petitioner's 
emphasis on the importance of supporting small businesses, when determining national importance, 
the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual 
will work. Instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." Id. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the 
2 
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. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the nation. 
Specifically, she has not shown that her financial management services stand to provide substantial 
economic benefits to the United States. The professional plan does not demonstrate that the benefits 
to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, although 
the Petitioner asserts that her proposed "endeavor will positively impact an economically depressed 
area" and "has a significant impact to employ U.S. workers," she has not provided evidence to 
establish that the area in which the company will operate is economically depressed, that she would 
employ a significant population of workers in that area, or that her endeavor would offer the region or 
its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or tax 
revenue. The Petitioner's unsupported statements are insufficient to meet her burden of proof. A 
petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Regarding the Petitioner's letters ofrecommendation, the authors praise the Petitioner's abilities and 
the personal attributes that make her an asset to the workplace. While they evidence the high regard 
the Petitioner's former employers and co-workers have for her and her work, they do not offer 
persuasive detail concerning the impact of her proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend 
beyond her customers and/or employer. As such, the letters are not probative of the Petitioner's 
eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar. 
Because the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. Since 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 the two remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
(1976). We also reserve a determination on the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying immigrant 
classification. 2 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 Although we will not address this issue further, we note that the Director stated that the Petitioner satisfied at least three 
of the initial evidentiary criteria ( official academic record, 10 years of full-time experience, and license or ce1iification 
requirement), but did not proceed with a final merits analysis and concluded that she did not demonstrate that she is an 
individual of exceptional ability. We note, however, that the Petitioner did not submit official transcripts and some of the 
letters only demonstrate part-time employment (25 hours per week at I I 
I I and 12 hours per week atl I The Petitioner should address this in any future 
filings. 
3