dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Services And Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 10, 2024 InRe: 31283199 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial services and accounting professional, 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 classification. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had prospective national importance, that she was 
well-positioned to carry out the proposed endeavor, or that a waiver of the labor certification 
requirement was beneficial. 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 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 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," we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions 
in the precedent decision Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states 
that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• 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. 
Id. 
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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model 
or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest 
of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Id. at 890. 
The third prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the individual's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer 
or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are 
available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national 
interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. 
In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish 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. 
Id. at 890-91. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The 
Petitioner is a financial management consultant and accountant who intends to continue her career 
in this field by opening and operating a financial consulting firm. She notes that she will assist U.S. 
companies to make sound financial decisions, offer advice to streamline their operations, improve 
productivity, and aid in expansion efforts in Latin America. 
The Director found the Petitioner qualified for underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. However, the Director determined that the Petitioner had 
not met the Dhanasar requirements for a waiver of a job offer and labor certification from a U.S. 
employer. Specifically, the Director concluded that the national importance of the endeavor had not 
been demonstrated under prong one, that the Petitioner was not well positioned to carry out the 
endeavor under prong two, or that the Petitioner had not shown that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement would be beneficial as required by prong three. We agree the Petitioner has not 
established the national importance of the endeavor, as required under the first prong of Dhanasar. 
2 
A. The Petitioner Has Hot Demonstrated that Her Endeavor Has National Importance 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues she has satisfied prong one of the Dhanasar framework because the 
Director did not properly weigh the evidence. She contends that the Director did not appropriately 
evaluate the record using the preponderance of the evidence standard but instead used a novel standard. 
She highlights her history of success in similar endeavors, and notes that the proposed endeavor could 
broadly impact the financial sector. She contends that the Director failed to adequately consider her 
business plan, work experience and credentials, letters of support, and the supporting documentation 
outlining the impact of the financial industry. The Petitioner argues that her endeavor will have direct 
economic impacts as well as ripple effects of national importance. 
In support of these contentions, the Petitioner has submitted evidence including, but not limited to: a 
business plan detailing her intention to open three financial consulting offices over a period of five 
years; a professional plan; letters of support from sources including colleagues, professors, and 
supervisors; diplomas, transcripts, and certificates; employment history; an expert opinion regarding 
her eligibility for a national interest waiver; and articles providing context and background on the 
financial services industry, the accounting industry, and the impact of immigrant entrepreneurs on the 
U.S. economy. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the fust prong of the Dhanasar framework requiring a proposed 
endeavor to be of national importance. Although the Petitioner stresses that the proposed endeavor is 
likely to be successful given her extensive work experience, and will create employment opportunities, 
these factors are not sufficient to show national importance. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting 
the "potential prospective impact" of her work. Although the evidence reflects the Petitioner's 
intention to provide valuable services for her clients, she 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, we find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend b eyond her clientele to impact the financial services industry, the accounting 
industry, or otherwise impact economic initiatives more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 2 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects. Specifically, she has not shown that her company's future staffing levels, business activity, 
associated tax revenue, and financial initiatives stand to provide substantial economic benefits in 
Massachusetts, in the states where expansion is contemplated, or in the United States generally. While 
the business plan indicates that the company has growth potential, it does not demonstrate that benefits 
to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, although the 
Petitioner asserts that the company will hire U.S. employees and that Massachusetts is economically 
2 The Petitioner has provided, and we have reviewed, a substantial number of documents outlining the importance of the 
financial services sector to the national and global economy. However, the Dhanasar framework instructs us to evaluate 
the impact of the specific proposed endeavor, rather than the field or industry generally. id. at 889. 
3 
distressed, she has not offered sufficient evidence that she would employ a significant population of 
workers in that area, or that the endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial 
economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or tax revenue. Moreover , while the 
Petitioner contends that the proposed endeavor will expand to multiple offices over five years, she has 
not shown that the business services performed by the company would represent a significant share of 
the financial services or accounting market. Accordingly , the Petitioner 's proposed work does not 
meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner has also not demonstrated that the Director violated USCIS policy or erroneously 
evaluated the case. The Petitioner takes issue with the Director's weighing of the evidence, but she 
has not provided details of which "novel standard" the Director purportedly applied. Similarly, 
although she alleges that the Director failed to correctly consider various pieces of evidence, she has 
not provided details of how the Director's analysis misevaluated this evidence . 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. We reserve opinion on whether the Petitioner could 
satisfy the second and third prongs to qualify for a national interest waiver. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues 
that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision) ; see also Matter ofL-A-C- , 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 
(BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the applicant did not otherwise meet 
their burden of proof) . 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that the proposed endeavor is of national importance. Because she has not 
met the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that she has not established she is 
eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4