dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Investment Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5947499 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 26, 2019 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a foreign investment consultant, seeks second preference 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that he is eligible for 
a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 l&N Dec. 799, 
806 (AAO 2012). 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. 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. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
Furthermore, 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). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 
the foreign national 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. 
1 In announcing this new rramework. we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation. 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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 foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she 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; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the 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, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national 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 foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
For the reasons discussed below, we withdraw that the Director's finding that the Petitioner qualifies as 
a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. In order to show an individual is a 
professional holding an advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied by "[ a ]n official academic 
record showing that the alien has a United States advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Alternatively, the Petitioner may present "[a]n official academic record 
showing that the alien has a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree, and 
evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer( s) showing that the alien has at least 
five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
The Petitioner presented a "Certificate in Business Management" (2007) he received from I I 
.__ _ _.I University,! I in recognition of his "successful completion of a Master of Business 
Administration (MBA) Foundation Program" (emphasis added). He also provided an academic 
transcript listing the various introductory business courses that he completed as part ofl ts 
"Foundation Program," but this transcript and the aforementioned certificate do not indicate that he 
received an MBA degree from that university. With respect to the Petitioner's completion of an MBA 
Foundation Program, this pre-MBA curriculum helps students develop the professional and academic 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 
qualities that are necessary for admission into an MBA program. It prepares students to cope with the 
MBA degree curriculum and build a foundation which they can build upon to pursue an MBA. Here, the 
Petitioner's evidence does not establish that his "Certificate in Business Management" from I I 
constitutes a U.S. advanced degree or a U.S. baccalaureate degree. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted a certificate stating that he re~h.D. in economics from the 
Academy of Sciences ofi I (1994), a credential from L___J State University I I of 
Economics indicating that he "is qualified as an economist" (1995), and a diploma from I I. 
I I State University stating that he received "a graduate degree as Orientalist/Historian and History 
Teacher Versed in Arabic" (1990). The aforementioned Ph.D. certificate, economist credential, and 
diploma were unaccompanied by the Petitioner's official academic record from each university and a 
credentials evaluation indicating that they were the foreign equivalent of a U.S. advanced degree or a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence demonstrating that 
he qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
B. Exceptional Ability 
The Petitioner also maintains that he meets three of the regulatory criteria for classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability: 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(~and (F). Upon review, we find 
that the Petitioner's Certificate in Business Management from L___J and letters from employers meet 
the requirements of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) and (B). 
With respect to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), the Petitioner offered recommendation 
letters from various individuals describing his education and work experience, but this evidence was 
not sufficient to demonstrate "recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industr] or field." For exam]le, the record includes letters froml ~ controller with 
I and I ( director and controller for I ~ discussing the 
Petitioner's employment history and economic workshops, but they did not offer specific examples of 
how his work was recognized as significant contributions to the financial services industry or foreign 
investment field. The evidence therefore does not establish that the Petitioner satisfies at least three of 
the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and has achieved the level of expertise required 
for exceptional ability classification. 
C. National Interest Waiver 
The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. The Director determined that the Petitioner 
had not met any of three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
Regarding the Petitioner's claim of eligibility under Dhanasar' s first prong, he stated that his proposed 
endeavor involves consulting "U.S. businesses and private entrepreneurs on matters related to corporate 
finance in post-Soviet Central Asian republics." He asserted that his undertaking aimed at advising "U.S. 
businesses intending to work or working in this region will benefit the U.S. economy nationwide by 
allowing businesses from across the U.S. to work successfully in this challenging region." The Petitioner 
further explained that his endeavor seeks to attract American investment in Uzbekistan and create joint 
Uzbek-American companies in various sectors of Uzbekistan's economy. 
4 
The Petitioner provided information about the American-Uzbekistan Chamber of Commerce, business 
opportunities for U.S. companies in Uzbekistan, and Uzbekistan's natural resources. In addition, he 
submitted letters from colleagues discussing general investment opportunities available in Central 
Asian markets and the economic and political benefits associated with those opportunities. The record 
therefore shows that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit. 
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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
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. We also stated 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 
area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he "plans to engage in attracting U.S. investments into the 
Uzbek economy and in creation of joint Uzbek-American companies." He contends that his proposed 
endeavor will link "U.S. business and investment institutions to Uzbekistan market opportunities via 
his cooperation with the American-Uzbekistan Chamber of Commerce." The Petitioner further states 
that he "intends to promote investment opportunities to attract U.S. investment to Uzbekistan." In 
addition, he asserts that his proposed work will benefit the United States through trade access to Uzbek 
natural resources, allocating U.S. production of consumer goods to Uzbekistan based on that country's 
lower labor costs, investment returns and profit margins as a result of lower raw material costs, and 
investment income associated with economic privileges and tax exemptions. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. Although the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable investment services for his future 
clients, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of his 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 beyond his clients to impact the U.S. 
foreign investment industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. 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. Id. at 890. Accordingly, 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 his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
5 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that he satisfies the regulatory requirements for classification as a 
member of the professions holding degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. Furthermore, as 
the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that he 
has not established he 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, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6