dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 30, 2024 In Re: 31109383 
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 or of exceptional ability. 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. See 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and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish 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 pursuant to 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 Christa '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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Whilst neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that USCIS may as a matter of discretion 
grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the labor certification, to a petitioner 
classified in the EB-2 category if they demonstrate that (1) the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance, (2) the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor, and (3) that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the 
requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor the 
noncitizen 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petition to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, indicate 
that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and 
thus of a labor certification. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver 
of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that whilst the Petitioner was well positioned to advance 
their proposed endeavor, the proposed endeavor was not of national importance such that on balance 
a waiver of the requirement of a job offer and labor certification would be beneficial to the United 
States. We agree with the Director's overall decision that the Petitioner does not qualify for a national 
interest waiver, but we do not agree with and will withdraw the Director's specific finding that the 
Petitioner was well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner intended to establish ___________ to provide "administrative and 
financial advisement for small and medium-sized businesses." The Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
intended to target those small and medium-sized businesses that "are experiencing economic hardship 
2 
as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as restaurants, small retailers, convenience stores, pet 
stores and small service providers that are unable to pay for specialized professional services." Upon 
de novo review of the evidence and assertions the Petitioner introduced in the record, we conclude the 
Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated the national importance of their proposed endeavor under 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
Whilst the Director found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit, they also 
concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that their proposed endeavor was of national 
importance because the Petitioner did not demonstrate the broader implications of the proposed 
endeavor or its potential positive economic effects. For the below reasons, we agree. 
The Petitioner generally alleges on appeal that USCIS applied "a stricter standard of proof'' when 
evaluating the evidence they submitted into the record. The evidentiary standard in immigration 
proceedings is the lowest preponderance of the evidence standard. The burden is on the Petitioner 
alone to provide material, relevant, and probative evidence to meet that standard. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. A petitioner's burden of proof comprises both the initial burden of production, 
as well as the ultimate burden of persuasion. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998); 
also see the definition of burden of proof from Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (reflecting the 
burden of proof includes both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion). First, a 
petitioner must satisfy the burden of production. As the term suggests, this burden requires a filing 
party to produce evidence in the form of documents, testimony, etc. that adheres to the governing 
statutory, regulatory, and policy provisions sufficient to have the issue decided on the merits. The 
Petitioner's evidence and argument does not help them carry their burden of production and persuasion 
because it is not persuasive relevant, material, or probative evidence relating to the national importance 
of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The relevant inquiry for evaluation of an endeavor's national importance is whether the prospective 
positive impact judged by the endeavor's broader implications or positive economic effects apply 
beyond just narrowly conferring the proposed endeavor's benefit. The Petitioner has not demonstrated 
how conferring the benefit to the small and medium sized businesses they intend to solicit have any 
implication or benefit rising to a level beyond them and touching matters of national importance. In 
their appeal, the Petitioner cited to "probative research" that demonstrated their "role" has "national 
importance." The Petitioner's "probative research" submitted into the record in its response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE) consisted of three articles that discussed the importance of small 
and medium-sized businesses to the U.S. economy. We acknowledge that the Petitioner's proposed 
business is a small business. But it is not adequately demonstrated in the "probative research" the 
Petitioner submitted how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor operating a small business in the 
financial management field had national, or even global, impact. Additionally, the research the 
Petitioner cited did not render it sufficiently apparent what broader matters the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor implicates rising to a level of national importance. 
And, whilst we note the Petitioner's endeavor does intend to engage with small and medium sized 
business for financial management needs, it is not clear in the record how the Petitioner's contemplated 
service relates to small and medium-sized businesses in a manner implicating matters of national 
3 
importance because any benefit or influence from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, such that it is, 
would apply mainly only to those small and medium-sized businesses that work directly with the 
Petitioner. This is akin to how the benefit of someone's teaching is generally only directly beneficial 
to the students being taught and not wider population. In Dhanasar we discussed how teaching would 
not impact the field of education broadly in a manner which rises to national importance. Dhanasar 
at 893. By extension activities which only benefit a small subset of individuals and companies, like 
the Petitioner's proposed financial management endeavor, would not rise to a level of national 
importance. In sum the record supports the conclusion that the potential impact of the endeavor of 
providing financial management to small and medium sized businesses would benefit only the 
individuals and entities engaging the service. 
Additionally, the record does not demonstrate with material, relevant, and probative evidence how the 
proposed endeavor's benefits broadly implicate matters of national importance. In Dhanasar, we 
noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a ]n undertaking 
may have a national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within 
a particular field." Id. The broader implications of the proposed endeavor, national and/or 
international, can inform us of the proposed endeavor's national importance. That is not to say that the 
implications are viewed solely through a geographical lens. Broader implications can reach beyond a 
particular proposed endeavor's geographical locus and focus. The relevant inquiry is whether the 
broader implications apply beyond just narrowly conferring the proposed endeavor's benefit. The 
Petitioner's business plan stated the proposed endeavor would provide "administrative and financial 
advisement for small and medium-sized businesses" that "are experiencing economic hardship as a 
result of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as restaurants, small retailers, convenience stores, pet stores 
and small service providers that are unable to pay for specialized professional services." However, as 
we stated previously, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the impact of the 
Petitioner's endeavor would permeate beyond the immediate sphere of those small and medium size 
businesses and manufacturing companies engaging the Petitioner for their services. In other words, 
the record does not adequately establish the broader implications of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
rising to a level of national importance. It is not clear from the record how providing "administrative 
and financial advisement for small and medium-sized businesses" would implicate matters at a level 
of national importance. And to the extent that the Petitioner asserts that the national importance of 
their proposed endeavor is apparent upon aggregation of the benefits ( or so called "ripple effects) 
realized by their clients engaging their services, the record as it is presently composed does not 
convincingly reflect the level at which this aggregation would implicate an issue rising to a level of 
national importance. 
In the same vein, it is unclear from the evidence in the record that the work of a single financial 
manager in a financial management endeavor, irrespective of that proposed endeavor's success or 
failure, would have a significant impact on the field beyond its immediate sphere of influence. The 
evidence in the record does not highlight how the work of one professional could have broader 
implications that address "economic hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic" in a manner 
rising to a level of national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that their proposed endeavor has "tremendous positive economic 
effects." We stated in Dhanasar 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 
4 
area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id at 890. The Petitioner 
roots the potential positive effects of their financial management firm in their potential for job creation 
and revenue generation. The Petitioner anticipates a hiring spree increasing their head count to 13 
individuals over five years and increasing their expenditures on salary, but it is not clear from the 
record how this job creation for the proposed endeavor itself would have a substantial prospective 
positive economic effect commensurate with national importance. Specifically, the business plan 
anticipated that the endeavor would employ 13 employees generating tax revenue on $742,891 in five 
years of operation and purportedly generating $162,745 in tax revenue. But even though the Petitioner 
anticipates increasing gross income, a hiring spree increasing their head count, and increasing their 
expenditures on salary generating tax income, it is not clear from the record as described above how 
this job creation for the proposed endeavor itself is significant in a manner that would have a 
substantial prospective positive economic effect commensurate with national importance. The 
Petitioner's aspirations do not demonstrate the national importance of the endeavor because they, 
whether realized or not, would not extend beyond the endeavor itself to have an impact on a level of 
national importance. The record also does not contain sufficient probative, material, or relevant 
evidence showing how the endeavor's hiring plan would influence the area's unemployment rate or 
how the endeavor's operations, tax generation, and revenue rose to a level of national importance. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements from universities, professional 
organization, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron Int'!, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, the submission ofletters from experts supporting 
the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Moreover, letters from relevant third-party 
reviewers such as prospective investors, retailers, or other industry experts will generally be more 
persuasive to support the merits of an entrepreneur's business, business plan, product, or technology. 
The Petitioner commissioned letters authored b 
The content of both letters lacks 
relevance when it comes to the evaluation of whether the Petitioner's business and services rise to the 
level of national importance. 
For example, in addressing the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor, both letters discussed 
the general benefit to the United States of having financially sound and responsible businesses 
operating in the economy. However, aside from overarching statements that the Petitioner's endeavor 
would operate in this field, the letters did not specifically identify how the provision of services from 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would impact the financial health and responsible business 
practices of United States companies in a manner implicating matters of national importance or what 
broader implications emanate therefrom. Instead, the letters overwhelmingly discussed the importance 
of the Petitioner's industry and occupation as well as the Petitioner's previous experiences. But this 
does not relate or correspond to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. So, 
the letters do not provide any meaningful analysis of the endeavor's broader implications or potential 
prospective economic impact rising to the level of national importance. 
Additionally, the opinion authored by lrefers to the "unique strategies" in "the business 
and finance sector" the Petitioner would employ by and through their proposed endeavor. But 
ldoes not specifically identify the strategies, explain how they are "unique," or shed any light 
on how they influence matters globally or nationally, or have other broader implications rising to a 
level of national importance. 
5 
I 
I 
Moreover, the opinion letter authored by 
Iat one juncture references a "Mr. __ as an "expert" whose work is in the national 
interest. The writer's conflicting references to the name of the Petitioner in their opinion obscures the 
identity of the individual the writer is rendering their opinion for. An opinion statement has less weight 
where there is cause to question or doubt the opinion, or if it is not in accord with other information in 
the record. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. Moreover, doubt cast on any aspect of a 
petitioner's proof may lead to doubts about the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence 
insupportofthevisapetition. See Matter ofHo, 19I&NDec. 582,591 (BIA 1988). 
The Petitioner submitted three letters from individuals who engaged the Petitioner by and through 
In their letters, the writers described the services the Petitioner 
performed for them and the benefits they realized from the services. Contrary to the Petitioner's 
assertions, the letters do not shed light on the prospective positive impact of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor beyond the individuals who engaged the Petitioner for their services. The letters do not 
adequately characterize the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor either through a 
demonstration of national or even global impact or identifying broader implications emanating from 
the proposed endeavor. For example, it is not sufficiently evident how "optimizing operational 
processes" and "reducing losses" at a single business enterprise would broadly implicate the benefits 
of financial management in a manner ascending to a level of national importance. And the record does 
not sufficiently describe the prospective potential impact on matters rising to a level of national 
importance from the "generation and analysis of management reports for" a restaurant chain. And it 
is not patent that the Petitioner's "ability to analyze complex data and [their] strategic financial 
decision-making skills" exert influence on matters rising to a level of national importance either 
through national or even global implications to the field of financial management or broader 
implications emanating from their skills at a nationally important level. 
So, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that their proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. 
C. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
We disagree with the Director and hereby withdraw the Director's conclusion that the record 
established the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. In evaluating whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance 
their proposed endeavor, we review the following and any other relevant factors: 
• A petitioner's education, skill, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar efforts; 
• A petitioner's model or plan for future activities related to the proposed endeavor that the 
individual developed, or played a significant role in developing; 
• Any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and 
• The interest or support garnered by the individual from potential customers, users, investor, or 
other relevant entities or persons. 
It is not clear how an individualized consideration of the multifactorial analysis under Dhanasar 's 
second prong would demonstrate how well positioned the Petitioner is to advance their proposed 
6 
endeavor. The record as currently constituted would still not reflect how the Petitioner's prior 
performance of the duties described in the experience letters is either a similar effort as that of their 
proposed endeavor or how it constitutes a record of success. Whilst the Petitioner submitted a business 
plan describing a plan or model for future activities, the record does not reflect any progress to 
achieving the proposed endeavor other than registering their company and operating their business. 
The establishment and operation of their company alone is not sufficient evidence of progress. Finally, 
the recommendation letters the Petitioner submitted are not material, relevant, or probative evidence 
in the record of interest or support in the endeavor the Petitioner proposed in their petition. They are 
instead effusive statements describing the competent way the Petitioner completed work for which the 
letter writers engaged the Petitioner. As stated above, a petitioner's burden of proof comprises both 
the initial burden of production, as well as the ultimate burden of persuasion. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N 
Dec. at 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998); also see the definition of burden of proof from Black's Law Dictionary 
(11th ed. 2019) (reflecting the burden of proof includes both the burden of production and the burden 
of persuasion). So, the evidence in the record does not sufficiently describe how well situated the 
Petitioner would be to advance their petition's proposed endeavor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established that they meet the first or second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, they have not shown that they are eligible for and otherwise merit a national interest 
waiver, and we reserve this issue. 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 I&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 requirements of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that they have not established that 
they are eligible for or otherwise merit a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7