dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Personal Financial Advisor

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 26400361 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 12, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a personal financial advisor, 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework identified in Matter 
of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter a/Christa 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies upon evidence already provided and asserts his endeavor has national 
importance because it: (1) impacts a matter that a government entity has described as having national 
importance or is the subject of national initiatives; (2) has national and even broader implications 
within a particular field; and (3) has substantial positive economic effects. 
We adopt and affirm the national importance portion of the Director's decision. See Matter of 
Burbano, 20 l&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 
1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally 
accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st 
Cir. 1996) Uoining eight circuit courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the 
decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats various factors that may show how an endeavor has national 
importance, but he does not meaningfully analyze how his endeavor meets these factors. For instance, 
he states that he will attract and incentivize individuals to invest in the U.S. markets, activities which 
he asserts are a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance. We 
recognize the importance of attracting foreign direct investment into the United States; however, the 
Petitioner has not explained how either his methods of attracting investment or his investment 
opportunities differ from those already available. Therefore, it is unclear how his endeavor would 
impact the field or the nation. Additionally, he has not explained how he will attract and process 
investments on a scale rising to the level of national importance. Likewise, the Petitioner's proposed 
work as a personal financial advisor supports a finding that he will impact his employer and individual 
clients, but the record does not reflect how this work will impact the field or the nation or generate 
substantial positive economic effects commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner offers 
generalized claims about the endeavor's national importance without providing sufficient independent 
and objective evidence to substantiate his claims. Accordingly, the record does not establish the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the first Dhanasar prong. Further analysis of his 
eligibility under the remaining prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. 
Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on 
appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2