dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Market Research And Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 24, 2024 In Re: 33951143 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a market research analyst and financial analyst, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 although the Petitioner 
is a professional holding an advanced degree, he did not establish 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 Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&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," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 
2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. 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 unpublish ed 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. 
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. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer is warranted. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have 
reviewed and considered each one. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted a business plan and 
described his proposed endeavor as providing market research and financial services and a 
"commitment to economic prosperity" whereby he aims to "instigate innovation and drive sustainable 
economic growth." He also stated that his "desire to stay in America transcends personal aspirations; 
it reflects a commitment to growing not just as a financier but as a key link in the financial well-being 
of the country." The business plan provided the following short-term goals with a brief description: 
1. Technology-driven market research innovation; 2. Rapid adaptation to online marketing dynamics; 
3. Ethical framework integration in financial analysis; 4. Collaborative market entry support for U.S. 
companies in CIS; 5. Dynamic contribution to post-pandemic economic recovery; 6. Specialized 
project engagement; 7. Industry thought leadership and knowledge sharing; 8. Continuous learning 
and professional development; 9. Strengthening cross-cultural business relationships; 10. Integration 
of sustainable practices in market strategies; and, 11. Contribution to educational initiatives. The 
Petitioner also briefly listed long-term goals and described how his role as a market research analyst 
and financial analyst will contribute to the U.S. economy. 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and that he 
is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Director determined, however, that the 
Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor is of national importance, and that, on balance, it 
would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement. On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates 
previous statements made in the initial petition and also submits an updated business plan for the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
We determine the Petitioner's new business plan submitted on appeal presents a new set of facts 
regarding his proposed employment, which is material to eligibility for the EB-2 classification and for 
a national interest waiver. The new business plan filed with the appeal materially changes the 
proposed endeavor. For example, the Petitioner provided documentation with the initial petition that 
he will work as a financial development director for a company, but the new business plan indicates 
that he will open his own business. Notably, the Petitioner's initial description of his proposed 
employment in the United States did not include plans to create and manage his own company. Here, 
the Petitioner's plans to establish a new company and perform financial planning services presented 
after the filing date cannot retroactively establish eligibility. In addition, the services outlined in the 
2 
new business plan shifted from the broad range of market research and financial analysis services 
outlined in the initial business plan to a more focused plan to provide financial planning consulting 
services such as, "providing expert guidance of financial planning and risk management, to investment 
advisory services, offering personalized investment strategies and portfolio management," to 
employer clients to make informed financial decisions. Furthermore, the new business plan outlines 
financial forecasting of sales and employment of staff that did not exist in the initial business plan. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cannot materially change aspects of the proposed position including the 
occupation in which he will be employed, and the nature of the proposed endeavor that he intends to 
pursue. The Petitioner must meet eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(l). Because the new business plan, filed for the first time on appeal, presents a new set of 
material facts, it cannot establish eligibility, and we need not address it further. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l); Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 176. Instead, we will review 
whether the initial business plan and supporting documentation establishes that the proposed endeavor 
has national importance. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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. As it relates to the 
Petitioner's experience and ability claims, those relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
Moreover, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of his business rather than the 
importance of financial services, immigration, and entrepreneurism. 2 Further, "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. 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. And 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. 
Moreover, 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. In 
Dhanasar, we determined 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. We recognize the 
overall value of providing market research and financial services; however, the evidence does not 
sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific undertaking stands to have an impact beyond the 
organizations and clients he would serve, or that his proposed work would otherwise have broader 
implications for the market research and financial industries or initiatives. Specifically, the Petitioner 
outlines an extensive list of short-term and long-term goals that are general and broad in scope and 
delve into multiple areas in the industry; however, the record does not establish with specific, probative 
2 The Petitioner's contentions and submissions of industry articles and reports relates to the substantial merit of the 
proposed endeavor rather than the national importance. 
3 
information how the Petitioner's services would have broader implications beyond his clients' growth 
and possible ripple effects to companies working with the client companies. The record does not 
establish the Petitioner has plans to introduce novel methodologies or techniques that may be 
disseminated to or adopted by others operating in the field or industry, or otherwise articulate how he 
will contribute to research and development of the market research and financial industries as a whole. 
Here, the record does not show through supporting documentation how his services stand to 
sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Further, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 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. The Petitioner indicated in the initial business plan that his wealth of 
experience to the United States and American businesses will create a ripple effect of economic 
contributions and job creation. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, 
and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient evidence 
regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, 
the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the 
Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated 
by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by 
the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We acknowledge 
the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to the third prong of Dhanasar but, having found that the 
evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as to national importance, we reserve our 
opinion regarding whether the record establishes the remaining Dhanasar prong. 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 of L-A-C-, 
26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that he has not established that 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4