dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Sector

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 17, 2024 In Re: 33284468 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a service team manager, 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 of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 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 Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she 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. 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. 
While 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 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 
thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner demonstrates 
that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the 
1 See 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). 
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 that 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 petitioner 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 Petitioner proposes to work as an executive or similar high-level managerial position in the 
financial sector. The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. 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 of a labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer is warranted. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. The Director 
determined, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor's national 
importance, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's denial of her petition is inconsistent with the law 
and policy and is not corroborated by the evidence in the record. The Petitioner further contends that 
she has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance. 
While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
The record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to offer her expertise to the U.S. financial 
sector. Specifically, she intends to work in the private wealth management area as an executive or in 
2 
other high-level managerial roles for major banking institutions such as The 
Petitioner explains that she currently serves as a service team manager atl Iwhere she leads a 
team that handles investment for ultra-high-net-worth clients, each with a minimum net worth of $30 
million. 
The Petitioner highlights the evidence she submitted in support of her petition and in response to the 
Director's request for evidence including a personal statement, an expert opinion letter, letters of 
recommendation, and industry reports and articles to underscore the sufficiency of the submitted 
evidence. The author of the expert opinion letter extensively discusses the Petitioner's academic 
background and professional experience in the financial sector, particularly in wealth management. 
The author emphasizes that the Petitioner's expertise will directly and significantly impact the United 
States, especially given the Petitioner's experience in offering a wide range of financial services and 
the increasing demand for these services. Although an individual's experience, qualifications, 
contributions, and achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar 
prong. The Petitioner's claimed extensive experiences are material to Dhanasar's second prong­
whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they are generally 
immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-91. Moreover, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor rather than the importance of 
the industry or profession in which the individual will work. Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner has not 
done so. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. While 
the Petitioner claims that her proposed endeavor of working in the financial services sector is of 
national importance, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate 
that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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. Here, the 
record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific 
proposed endeavor of working as an executive or similar high-level managerial position in the 
financial sector offers broader implications in her field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or 
substantial positive economic effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner claims that her proposed endeavor will "positively affect her employer and investors 
who work with her, but also affect and benefit other industries, employment levels, and overall societal 
well-being - on a national and even international level." Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's 
assertions and the evidence she submitted in support of her petition, we conclude that the Petitioner 
has not shown her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend its benefits beyond her employer 
and clients to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance. It is 
insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without 
providing evidence to corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support her assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
2010). 
3 
The Petitioner provides industry reports and articles on the banking and financial sector, asserting that 
these documents serve as independent evidence that highlight the country's national interest issues 
that her work is poised to address significantly. As previously mentioned, 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." Id. at 889. Thus, the Petitioner must establish that her specific endeavor has national 
importance under Dhanasar 's first prong, which she has not. 
The Petitioner argues that by managing and investing substantial capital for her clients, she will play 
a crucial role in capital allocation, which she believes drives economic growth. The Petitioner further 
asserts that by directing capital toward businesses and projects with high return potential, she can 
support their expansion and growth, which she claims will ultimately lead to job creation and 
stimulation oflocal economies. The Petitioner nonetheless has not sufficiently explained how she will 
positively impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move the U.S. economy on 
a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. Without evidence projecting U.S. economic 
impact or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, it is insufficient to assert that 
the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the proposed endeavor would rise 
to the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish 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. Since this issue is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and also hereby reserve the appellate arguments 
regarding her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that she has not established 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4