dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Management Consultancy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 28, 2024 In Re: 31283385 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner is an entrepreneur who seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree as well as a national interest 
waiver (NIW) 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner merited a discretionary waiver 
of the job offer requirement in the national interest. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to 
demonstrate eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of 
the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We 
review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 53 7, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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 USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion, 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. 
USCIS' decision to grant or deny an NIW is discretionary in nature. See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 
85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals, as well as the 
Third Circuit in an unpublished decision). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Eligibility for the EB-2 Classification 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was eligible 
for the EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree based upon his degree and evidence of at least five years of 
progressive post-baccalaureate work in this field. Accordingly, the sole issue on appeal is whether the 
Petitioner merits an NIW of the EB-2 classification's job offer requirement as a matter of discretion. 
We agree with the Director's conclusion that he does not. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
The Petitioner characterizes the proposed entrepreneurial work as a general and operations manager. 
His proposed endeavor consists of opening a financial management consultancy office with a 
particular focus servicing financial institutions, hotels, and property management businesses. 
We begin correcting a statement in the Petitioner's appeal brief in which he indicated the Director 
concluded he was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong. 
A review of the Director's decision does not reveal any determination relating to that requirement. 
l. Substantial Merit and National Importance (Collectively Dhanasar 's First Prong) 
The first prong, 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 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 I&N Dec. at 889. 
When we evaluate national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the foreign national will work. Rather, we focus on the "the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake" and we look to evidence illustrating the "potential 
prospective impact" of his actual proposed work. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. A petitioner 
must demonstrate the proposed endeavor will "impact the field ... more broadly" (Id. at 893) and that 
it has "broader implications" (Id. at 889). Such endeavors may have "national or even global 
implications within a particular field" (Id. at 889), "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
[have] other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for 
instance" (Id. at 890), or has the potential to widely advance and broadly affect U.S. strategic interests 
(Id. at 892). 
The Petitioner's sole appellate argument under this requirement is that the Director mistakenly 
concluded that the proposed endeavor's location would not be in an economically depressed area. In 
the denial decision, the Director stated the endeavor would not be located in an economically depressed 
2 
area. While the Director was technically correct that the area is not designated as economically 
depressed, evidence in the record reflects it is economically distressed. We note the projections 
indicate the endeavor would create four jobs in this economically distressed area. But within the 
appeal, the Petitioner does not explain how or why a nominal number ofjobs in a county of more than 
18,000 residents would impact the field more broadly or would have significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or have other substantial positive economic effects in the area. The Petitioner's appellate 
arguments under Dhanasar 's first prong are inadequate to demonstrate his endeavor has national 
importance. 
2. We Reserve Dhanasar 's Remaining Second and Third Prongs 
As we explain above, Dhanasar 's second and third prongs require the Petitioner to demonstrate he is 
eligible for an NIW meeting additional requirements. But because the Petitioner has not established 
that his proposed endeavor satisfies the Dhanasar framework's first prong, he is not eligible for an 
NIW and further discussion of the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. 
Consequently, we will not address and we reserve the Petitioner's remaining appellate arguments. 
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 332 (2022) (citing INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) 
(finding agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary 
to the ultimate decision)); see also Matter of Chen, 28 I&N Dec. 676, 677 n.l, 678 (BIA 2023) 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3. Discretionary Element 
As a final issue, the Petitioner's arguments do not persuade us that when the Director denied the 
petition, they erred by not identifying each positive and negative factor and then explaining the weight 
given to each factor. The agency policy the Petitioner references in his appeal relates to benefit 
requests denied solely as a matter of discretion. But that is not the situation before us because the 
Director only found the Petitioner met the EB-2 requirements, then concluded he did not satisfy 
Dhanasar 's first or third prongs. In doing so, the Director did not deny the NIW petition solely as a 
matter of discretion, but instead denied it for not meeting Dhanasar 's requirements. As a result, 
neither the law nor policy required the Director to perform the type of discretionary analysis the 
Petitioner proposes. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3