dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 27, 2024 In Re: 29827955 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial manager, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. See 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 EB-2 immigrant 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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 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 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 establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner shows: 
1 See also 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 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, and we agree with that determination. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be 
determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a 
job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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 Petitioner, a financial manager, proposes to initiate a training and consulting platform for the 
benefit of entrepreneurs, businessmen and businesswomen to assist them in achieving stability and 
financial growth. In a business plan submitted in sup=ort of the petition, the Petitioner described this 
project, called I Ias follows: 
The ~ platform will allow entrepreneurs, professionals, businessmen and 
businesswomen to understand the strategies that they must follow to manage and 
control their businesses in order to be highly profitable and sustainable. All of this in 
the most simple and didactic manner. 
The Petitioner further stated that the~ program includes three excellence models targeting large 
and medium-sized companies, start-ups, and professionals, and described them in further detail as 
follows: 
The content of the first two Models of Excellence (Large and Medium-Sized 
Companies and Start-Ups), will be mainly aimed at achieving the following: 
✓ Clear definition of the company's vision, mission, values, policies and 
procedures and their proper disclosure and compliance within the organization. 
✓ Understanding, development and control of the company's Business Plan as 
well as financial management models, financial projections, sensitivity models, 
2 
Feasibility Studies for CAPEX and Action Plans by business area, in order to 
achieve the goals and the implementation strategies. 
✓ Successful management and administration of the company's Cash Flow. 
Managing and taking advantage of cash surpluses, cleverly addressing cash 
deficits, and management during crisis situations. 
✓ Implementation of savings programs for times of crisis. 
✓ Culture of self-management control of the individual results. 
✓ Understanding, preparation and management of budgets, forecast, financial 
planning, sensitivities, dashboards, performance indicators and other 
management tools, per company, per area and per individual. 
✓ Risk maps management and identification of the opportunities and threats that 
the business has, as well as the use and care of these. 
✓ Adequate control of costs, expenses, working capital and CAPEX Identification 
and management of hidden costs, unforeseen expenses and contingent 
expenses. 
✓ Implementation of budget austerity programs culture. 
✓ Development and implementation of commercial, marketing and logistics 
strategy, as well as market intelligence plans, competitive analysis and 
benchmarking. 
✓ Control of raw materials, inventories and warehouses. 
✓ Understanding of finance and accounting, without being experts on that. 
✓ Ideal organizational structure, handling and management of human talent, staff 
rotation, communication, motivation, recruitment, development plan, 
succession plan, benefits and training. 
✓ Compliance and control of tax and legal obligations. 
✓ Innovation and creativity in the business. 
✓ Leveraging technology as a competitive advantage. 
The content of the third Excellence Model (Professional Excellence Model), will be 
aimed at guiding professionals along the path of success considering the following: 
✓ Styles of leadership and management of work teams, according to the 
circumstances that companies are experiencing at a given time. 
✓ Establishment of own differential values within organizations. 
✓ Planning, execution, management and monitoring skills. 
✓ Management of performance indicators and domain of finance, as well as the 
understanding of the impact of their decisions and management on the 
bottom-line Income Statement of the company. 
✓ Permanent professional and personal growth inside and outside the 
organizations. 
✓ Management of rotation, inside and outside of the companies. 
✓ Strategies for job searching, depending on the personal and professional 
circumstances of the moment. 
✓ Decision about business initiatives ( entrepreneur life versus employee life). 
✓ Savings and investment culture, and pension retirement planning. 
✓ Balance of life and mental health. 
3 
✓ Management of image, reputation and interpersonal relationships. 
The initial filing also included copies of the Petitioner's academic credentials, letters of 
recommendation, press information, and industry articles and reports in support of his eligibility. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), noting that while the Petitioner's evidence was 
sufficient to establish that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit and that he is well positioned 
to advance his proposed endeavor, the record as initially constituted was insufficient to demonstrate 
that the proposed endeavor had national importance. Specifically, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner had not thoroughly described the proposed endeavor to establish its national importance or 
that the proposed endeavor would impact the regional or national population at a level consistent with 
national importance. As a result, the Director requested a detailed description of the Petitioner's 
endeavor in order to evaluate his request for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter, and resubmitted his business plan and 
letter of intent in support of his eligibility. The Petitioner's counsel also submitted a letter claiming 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor "will make a positive and significant impact on the financial 
results of companies, and will directly impact economic growth in the United States," as "the stability 
and growth of small businesses in the United states will stimulate the economy." Counsel further 
emphasized the Petitioner's professional history and experience, noting that he is uniquely qualified 
to advance his proposed endeavor. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the proposed 
endeavor's national importance, noting that the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate 
that the Petitioner's work would impact the regional or national population at a level consistent with 
national importance. The Director further noted that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 
benefits of his proposed U.S. consulting company would reach beyond his company and his clients to 
affect his field or the United States more broadly. The Director further concluded that the record did 
not satisfy the third Dhanasar prong, as required. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director failed to consider his proposed endeavor's broader 
implications as shown in the business plan, industry reports, and articles, and further contends that the 
Director did not give due regard to the expert opinion letter submitted in response to the RFE. The 
Petitioner also asserts, through counsel, that the Director disregarded the evidence submitted, and 
provides a brief that emphasizes his qualifications as a financial manager and the manner in which his 
project will impact U.S. companies at a level commensurate with national importance. 
For the reasons provided below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
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." See id. at 889. 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." 
4 
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 Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to 
evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. 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. 
The Petitioner contends that the Director did not duly consider certain pieces of evidence, such as his 
company's business plan, his work in the field, industry articles and reports, and an expert opinion letter. 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's appellate claims, we nevertheless conclude that the 
documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 2 
We have reviewed the staffing and revenue projections in the submitted business plan, which project 
that the Petitioner's company will directly employ five employees within five years and, during that 
period, cumulatively pay wages of over $670,000 and generate over $1 million in revenue. These 
employment and revenue projections, however, are not supported by details showing their basis or an 
explanation of how they will be realized, nor do they demonstrate a significant potential to either 
employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national economy. Specifically, the 
record does not support that the direct creation of five jobs or the expected revenue generated by the 
company will have a substantial economic benefit commensurate with the national importance element 
of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Moreover, through industry reports and articles, the Petitioner emphasized the importance of financial 
managers and the financial consulting industry in relation to the welfare and prosperity of U.S. 
companies and its impact on issues such as the rising national debt and the need to attract Science, 
Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics (STEM) professionals. We agree that the field of financial 
management is important, and that success in the field may lead to greater career opportunities and 
economic advantages. However, 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 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. 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. While the Petitioner proposes to work in an important 
industry or field, this is not necessarily sufficient to establish the national importance of the specific 
proposed endeavor. Regardless, the articles and reports do not discuss any particulars of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its prospective impact rising to the level of national importance. 
We note the Petitioner's contention that he qualities for a national interest waiver because he works in 
a STEM field. The specific STEM evidentiary considerations mentioned by the Petitioner are only 
applicable where the endeavor concerns critical and emerging technologies or other STEM areas 
important to U.S. competitiveness and national security. 3 There is insufficient information in the 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
5 
record to establish that the Petitioner's endeavor implicates these nationally important areas. 
Furthermore, working in a STEM field does not exempt petitioners from establishing the national 
importance of their endeavors. Id. 
In Dhanasar, we determined 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. Likewise, the 
Petitioner has not established how providing his financial management consulting services stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond his clients to impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance. 
We also reviewed the expert opinion letter from a university professor in the accounting field. The 
author discusses the Petitioner's skills and abilities as a financial manager and speculates on how his 
services can potentially improve business practices and improve productivity of companies, but does 
not offer any persuasive detail concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how his endeavor's 
impact would extend beyond the companies that he will serve. 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'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988) 
(holding that the immigration service may reject or afford less evidentiary weight to an expert opinion 
that conflicts with other information or "is in any way questionable."). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. 
Id. 
The record includes evidence to support the Petitioner's assertion that he has experience in the field 
of financial management, such as letters of support from former colleagues and business associates 
that speak to his talents and accomplishments in various aspects of financial management. We note 
that the Petitioner's experience, however, is not relevant to the first part of the Dhanasar framework, 
but to the second - whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
Similarly, throughout the record, the Petitioner and his counsel highlight his experience in financial 
management to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Again, 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." See Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance 
of the evidence, the national importance of his proposed work. Neither the letters nor any other 
evidence within the record provide insight into how the Petitioner's endeavor to initiate a training and 
consulting platform for the benefit of entrepreneurs and business owners will positively impact the 
region or the industry beyond any clients to which his singular business will provide services. 
The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic benefits for the United States. 
Consequently, the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. 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. 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 
6 
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 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7