dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JULY 19, 2023 In Re: 26965494 
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 is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion . The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R . § 103.3. On appeal , the Petitioner 
contends that the Director's decision contains numerous erroneous conclusions of both law and facts. 
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. 
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. 
"Advanced degree" means any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of baccalaureate . 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(k)(2). A U.S . baccalaureate degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered 
the equivalent of a master's degree . Id. 
"Profession" means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
1101(a)(32), 1 as well as any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent 
is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
"Exceptional ability" in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise significantly above 
that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner 
must initially submit documentation that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 2 Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself: 
establish eligibility for this classification. We will then conduct a final merits determination to decide 
whether the evidence in its totality shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. 3 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 4, 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Visa Classification 
As indicated above, the 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. 
The Petitioner claims that the Director acknowledged that she qualifies as an advanced degree 
professional. However, a review of the record of proceeding reveals that the Director did not 
determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated eligibility for EB-2 visa classification either as an 
advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Here, since the evidence in the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act. 
2 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
3 USCTS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-
part-f-chapter-5. 
4 See also Poursina v. USC1S. 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
Petitioner is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion for the 
reasons we will discuss below, there is no requirement to reach the issue of the Petitioner's categorical 
eligibility for EB-2 visa classification today, and we will reserve this issue for future consideration 
should the need arise. 5 
B. National Interest Waiver 
The Petitioner proposed to provide services as a financial manager in the United States. 6 She asserted 
that she would develop and manage financial plans to support companies in growing their businesses, 
meeting their commercial targets, gaining more customers, and generating revenue. 7 The Petitioner 
farther asserted that she would optimize companies' resources, increase company revenue, and create 
job opportunities, contributing to the U.S. economy. 8 The Petitioner also asserted that she would 
implement innovative and efficient strategies and make high performance in the business sector by 
managing budget and office and preparing and analyzing key performance indicator reports, which 
measure the performance of individuals, projects, and departments, helping companies in the 
elaboration of strategies and objectives. 9 
The Director did not determine whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit or 
whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Director only 
determined that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her proposed 
endeavor is of national importance and that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to 
waiver the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
At the time of filing her petition, the Petitioner submitted her resume, diplomas, transcripts, course or 
training completion certificates, evidence of membership in associations, letters from an accountant, 
professional plan, an expert opinion letter from a professor, industry reports and articles, and support 
letters from her former supervisor, former colleagues, and former professor. In response to a request 
for evidence, the Petitioner submitted her updated resume, updated professional plan, letters from her 
current and former employers, her federal income tax return for 2021, an expert opinion letter from a 
professor, employment contracts, and a job offer letter from her current employer. On appeal, the 
Petitioner does not submit new evidence to address the deficiencies noted in the Director's decision. 
While we may not address each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. 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. Id. For example, endeavors 
related to research, pure science, and the furtherance of human knowledge may qualify. Id. In this 
5 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 of L-A-C-, 26 T&N Dec. 516. 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
6 See the Petitioner's professional plan. at 2, dated August 2022. 
7 See id. at 4. 
8 See id. 
9 See id. at 4-7. 
3 
case, we determine that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to provide services as a financial manager 
in the United States to support companies in growing their businesses, optimizing their resources, 
increasing their revenue, creating jobs, and contributing to the U.S. economy has substantial merit. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An undertaking may have national importance, 
for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. Id. We look for 
broader implications. Id. An 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 Petitioner contends that her work has palpable broader implications because its results are widely 
disseminated to other professionals in the finance market. The Petitioner farther contends that USCIS 
may consider information about petitioners' current or prospective positions to illustrate the capacity 
in which they intend to work to determine whether the proposed endeavor meets the requirements of 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner then provides her employment history from 
2006 to present, indicating that she has worked for various companies as a salesperson, a receptionist, 
an administrative assistant, or an executive secretary since 2006. The Petitioner states that at her 
current position as an administrative assistant wit~ Isince October 
2021, she assists vice presidents in their daily routines, prepare reports about production and activities, 
prepares presentations, draft contracts and letters, plans events, lunches, and other functions, send 
interoffice communications, and order supplies. 
The Petitioner's current job responsibilities show that she performs various administrative functions 
as an administrative assistant for her current employer, but these duties do not illustrate how her 
proposed endeavor to provide services as a financial manager will have broader implications within a 
particular field or how the results of her work will be disseminated to other professionals in the finance 
market. In addition, the Petitioner's lengthy employment history as a salesperson, a receptionist, an 
administrative assistance, or an executive secretary for various companies may support that she is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, but 
it does not support that her proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that the positive impacts of her proposed endeavor are significant 
because they relate to an area of national importance - finance. The Petitioner asserts that finance is 
an essential aspect for U.S. individuals and organizations, and, therefore, she will be vital for the U.S. 
business growth. The Petitioner farther contends that her proposal will impact the finance field 
because she will innovate the way financial services are provided and foster U.S. small businesses, 
which are the backbone of the U.S. economy, lead the way in innovations, and reflect the diversity of 
the U.S. population. The Petitioner also contends that her proposal will implement modem and refined 
techniques in finance, influencing the field. 
While we acknowledge the importance of the finance field and small businesses in the U.S. economy, 
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. The Petitioner must 
4 
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the specific endeavor that she proposed to 
undertake - providing services as a financial manager - is of national importance. Here, the Petitioner 
has not provided sufficient documentary evidence that her proposed endeavor as a financial manager 
would impact the finance field more broadly rather than benefiting her employer or clients. Without 
sufficient documentary evidence of its broader impact, the Petitioner's proposed employment does not 
meet the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
In addition, while the Petitioner claims that she will innovate the way financial services are provided, 
foster small businesses, and implement modem and refined techniques in finance to influence the field, 
she has not provided farther details regarding how she will innovate the way financial services are 
provided or how her financial services will foster small businesses. Also, she has not identified what 
the modem and refined techniques in finance are and explained how she will implement the techniques 
to influence the finance filed. Lack of detailed information and the Petitioner's general conclusionary 
assertions without supporting documentation impede our ability to determine whether the proposed 
endeavor is of national importance. See Matter of Sojfici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(holding that statements made without supporting documentation are of limited probative value and 
are not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in immigration proceedings); see also 1756, Inc. v. The 
Attorney General ofthe United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990) (stating that USCIS need 
not accept primarily conclusionary assertions). 
As for the economic value and job creation that the Petitioner asserts her proposed endeavor will offer, 
the Petitioner claims that her endeavor will lead to business improvement by helping U.S. businesses 
identify their weaknesses and take necessary measures for improvement; that her endeavor will impact 
cross-border transactions, which has the potential to significantly impact the U.S. economy; that she 
will facilitate capital accumulation throughout the nation by serving foreign companies and investors 
who will invest in the United States; and that she will provide financial services to companies 
conducting cross-border activities in Brazil because she is well versed in the Brazilian market. The 
Petitioner claims that her proposal has significant potential to maintain U.S. workforce production at 
a fast pace, which will translate into economic benefits for U.S. companies, the increase in 
productivity, competitiveness, generation ofrevenue, creation of U.S. jobs, and impacting the nation 
in several layers of the society. 
Regarding the cross-border business transactions, the record does not adequately explain how the 
financial services the Petitioner proposed to provide would influence foreign companies or investors 
to invest in the United States or U.S. companies to conduct cross-border activities in Brazil at a level 
implicating national importance. While the Petitioner links foreign direct investment with job creation 
in general and also links cross-border activities in Brazil to job creation in the United States, the record 
does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any foreign direct investment in the United 
States or any cross-border activities in Brazil to be procured as a result of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor would create jobs on a magnitude, which could elevate her proposed endeavor to a level of 
national importance. 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's aspirations, she has not offered sufficient evidence to establish 
that her financial services will enable her employer or clients to employ a significant population of 
workers in an economically depressed area or that her endeavor would offer a particular U.S. region 
or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. Nor 
5 
has the Petitioner demonstrated that any increase in her employer's or clients' revenue stands to 
substantially affect economic activity regionally or nationally. The Petitioner has not otherwise 
provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of her proposed 
endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Accordingly, the record does not sufficiently 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent 
decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Therefore, further 
analysis of her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar would serve no 
meaningful purpose. We will reserve these issues for future consideration should the need arise. 10 
III. CONCLUSION 
Although the Petitioner has shown that her proposed endeavor to provide services as a financial 
manager in the United States has substantial merit, she has not shown by a preponderance of the 
evidence that her proposed endeavor is of national importance. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established by a preponderance of the evidence that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above-stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10 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 of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516. 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
6