dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 08, 2023 In Re: 27466899 
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 and 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 the record did not establish 
the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 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 nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. 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 thepertinent regulations define theterm "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 l&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 
discretion1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
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 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 determined the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification. Therefore, the 
remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established eligibility for a national interest waiver under 
the Dhanasar framework. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
The Petitioner stated that he "intends to advance his career as a Financial Manager [and] will make 
his services available to small and large businesses belonging to both the private and public sector in 
the United States. [H]e is determined to use his expertise as a means to complement and enhance 
businesses in the U.S. and to be a contributing member of American society." His services as a 
financial manager include accounting; controllership; business restructuring and management; internal 
auditing; and coordinating business activities between the United States and Latin America. While 
we do not list every activity the Petitioner will engage in to provide these services, among them are 
"[c]reate, develop, and implement innovative solutions ... Offer intelligent and innovative techniques 
... Develop financial strategies ... developing businesses that allow the allocation of more 
investments in different sectors in Latin America ... [and] [m]aximize the efficiency and productivity 
of U.S. businesses .... " 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor the 
individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in arange 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 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. To illustrate, "[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 Petitioner offered numerous explanations for how his proposed endeavor is nationally important 
and will have a broad impact. He highlighted the importance of the finance and business industry as 
a major economic and employment contributor in the United States. In support, he offered an overview 
of the financial services industry with statistics on its size and economic value. He contends that his 
services will help U.S. businesses reach financial strength in competitive markets and that his 
"contributions to the finance industry in the United States will have broader implications on a variety 
of industries, considering the financial health of businesses impacts the local economy and the social 
welfare of the American people." 
The Petitioner stated that his endeavor would help to address a talent shortage in the industry as well 
as create an economic ripple effect. By ensuring that businesses optimize their resources and perform 
well, the Petitioner expects his endeavor will increase professional demand in the economy, generate 
revenue, increase productivity, and reduce costs. As such, the specific economic benefits the Petitioner 
2 
env1s1ons include stimulating the economy; increasing tax revenues; creating employment 
opportunities; promoting social welfare and the standard of living; advancing the industry; and 
equipping and expanding the workforce. He also expects that his work with U.S. businesses seeking 
to expand their operations into Latin America will increase trade and reinforce bilateral relations. 
We agree that the Petitioner's endeavor operates in an important industry. 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 "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." See id. at 889. We further acknowledge and understand the basic effects of 
supply and demand, as any offer of goods or services has the potential to impact the economy. 
Nevertheless, this fact alone is insufficient to establish that the services the Petitioner plans to offer 
will benefit the U.S. economy, labor market, or financial industry on such a scale as to rise to the level 
of national importance. For instance, he has not provided evidence of how the ripple effects of his 
proposed endeavor would be substantial enough to affect tax revenues or bilateral trade agreements. 
Although having a job or a job offer is not an eligibility requirement for a national interest waiver, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence of the viability of his proposed work 
such that he has substantiated his claims about its prospective impact. The Petitioner has not offered 
the names of any specific organizations that he will work with or how he will provide his financial 
services to U.S. companies. Although the Petitioner provided copies of his e-mail correspondence 
with various recruiters about job prospects, the referenced positions do not appear to involve activities 
such as cross-border transactions with Latin America. The Petitioner has not identified which U.S. 
companies seek to expand their business into Brazil or Latin America or how this would function in 
the financial service contexts of the job offers he received. Further, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated, for example, how many clients he would need to serve, the size of them, and for what 
duration he would need to serve them in order to reach a substantial positive economic impact. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the companies the Petitioner plans to work with 
are currently managed and whether such companies already implement the financial methods the 
Petitioner intends to offer. Such details are significant, as it is not apparent which companies, if any, 
have the need for the Petitioner's financial services or how specifically the Petitioner intends to carry 
out his proposed endeavor. In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. Without more, we conclude that while the 
Petitioner's financial services may be useful, the impact of such services is unsubstantiated and 
difficult to ascertain. 
The Petitioner highlighted his past achievements to illustrate how his proposed endeavor might 
achieve a similar impact. He provided recommendation letters from former colleagues who offer 
praise of the Petitioner's personal and professional qualities but do not demonstrate knowledge of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. We examined the letters initially submitted and the additional letters 
submitted in the Petitioner's response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). Although the 
authors of the letters highlight the Petitioner's past achievements, there is little indication from the 
letters that his achievements impacted the field of financial management as a whole. Further, the 
authors' examples of the Petitioner's past success do not suggest that the Petitioner's impact extended 
beyond the businesses he worked with and the specific individuals they served. 
3 
The letters from describe how 
the Petitioner's services and actions resulted in increased soybean exports, favorable banking terms 
and lines of credit, and a church's financial stability, respectively. However, none of the authors 
provides specific examples or objective evidence of how the Petitioner's involvement resulted in 
"contributions to the finance industry" or impacted "the local economy and the social welfare." 
Furthermore, some of the letters provide insufficiently detailed examples of the Petitioner's work and 
the results he achieved. To illustrate, bothl I 
mention the Petitioner's general success in business transactions, but neither of them corroborate their 
claims with specific facts or supporting details. Although the authors hold the Petitioner in high regard, 
we conclude that generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have 
little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that 
an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). The 
submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters to determine whether they support the petitioner's 
eligibility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion 
testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
The Petitioner provided two advisory opinions, one from evaluator! I 
University, and the other from IUniversity. I lbegins with an overview 
of the proposed endeavor, emphasizing that the Petitioner will use "unique strategies" and improve 
the "performance and efficiency of organizations of all sizes." In the portion ot1 Iopinion 
that addresses the endeavor's national impmiance, he provides statistics on the economy and small 
businesses, background on the financial services industry, and comments on national initiatives, such 
as bilateral trade. However, the opinion letter does not provide specific details about the proposed 
endeavor.'( impar and how it would extend beyond the clients who hire the Petitioner for his services. 
Likewise, also provides an overview of the financial services industry and the Petitioner's work 
history, repeats information about the proposed endeavor, and cites global trade data.I ldoes not 
explain how the Petitioner's endeavor will produce benefits extending beyond those who engage the 
Petitioner for his services. While we acknowledge the evaluators' belief that the effects of the 
proposed endeavor will benefit the U.S. economy and job market, we conclude that their evaluations 
do not sufficiently support a finding that the proposed endeavor will have an impact broader than that 
which basic economic activity already has in general. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion 
statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter ofCaron Int'l, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with 
other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. Here, the evaluators' opinions 
are of little probative value as they have not offered sufficient evidence to substantiate them. 
Documents in the record reference the Petitioner's "unique" methods, techniques, and routines, 
"innovative techniques," as well as his "unique services" and "unique financial strategies." On appeal, 
he emphasizes his "modern strategies and techniques," "innovative and unique business development 
solutions," and "modern and refined techniques." While we acknowledge these phrases, we conclude 
they are not substantiated with evidence. Although the record and information on appeal includes his 
proposed endeavor activities and services, there is little explanation of any unique or innovative 
solutions the Petitioner developed or any demonstration of how his strategies and techniques are 
modern when compared with others. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). As 
4 
the explanations of these services appear to involve straightforward business and financial 
management concepts, we conclude that such adjectives as "unique," "innovative," and "modem" add 
little value to his assertion that the proposed endeavor would impact the industry more broadly. Even 
if we were to accept that his methods are unique and innovative, the Petitioner has not explained how 
such methods would be available to the industry as a whole, as opposed to only the businesses that 
hire him. 
On appeal, the Petitioner largely reiterates assertions about his proposed endeavor's impact to the 
economy. He states that his business solutions ''have the purpose of not only contributing toward 
improving the U.S. economy and well-being of citizens and residents but also using finance services 
to help U.S. companies and U.S. workers to have better performances and results, thereby contributing 
to increased revenues and business growth in the country." In addition, he states that his endeavor 
"has significant potential to maintain the U.S. workforce production at a fast pace, which will translate 
into economic benefits for U.S. companies along with the increase in productivity, competitiveness, 
generation of revenue, creation and support of U.S. jobs, as well as impacting the entire nation in 
several layers of the society." To reinforce these assertions, the Petitioner summarizes his past 
accomplishments, explains how he plans to improve access to financial solutions, and emphasizes the 
size of the Brazilian economy and the importance of trade. However, as explained, the Petitioner has 
not offered sufficient evidence to substantiate his assertions. Without sufficient information or 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, 
the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the 
Petitioner's projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. While the Petitioner's proposed endeavor may confer 
benefits to the parties he serves, the Petitioner has not established how his services would impact the 
U.S. economy or financial industry at a level commensurate with national importance. 
111. CONCLUSION 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs 
outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose. Because the identified reasons for 
dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining 
arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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 alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise 
ineligible). 
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. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5