remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Corporate Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 26423101 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 25, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a corporate finance 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 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. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis . 
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. If a 
petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 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 l&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 also 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) . 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded 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 a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner initially indicated that he intends to continue 
working "as Corporate Finance Manager for I .. or for another major infrastructure 
company in the U.S. for the indefinite future." He stated that he plans "to oversee, analyze and manage 
the finances of transportation infrastructure projects such as highways, roadways, bridges and dams, from 
inception through financial closing and final construction of the project." The Petitioner further 
explained: 
On a daily basis, [the Petitioner] will continue to review and analyze financial risk and 
benefit during the construction of transportation infrastructure projects to ensure financial 
control, improve processes, train staff, manage banking relations, and ensure their 
financial viability by anticipating any problem. He will also analyze cost of manpower, 
materials, etc., perform credit and cost analyses and budgeting to determine whether 
prospective projects are viable. During the construction stage, he will work with banks to 
put in place financial tools such as Supply Chain Finance or Sale of Receivables programs 
to help improve working capital, and Stand By Letters of Credit to improve 
co llateralizati on. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) asking the Petitioner to provide further information 
and evidence regarding his proposed endeavor. In response] the Petitioner indicated that he was 
promoted to Chief Financial Officer (CFO) atl in August 2021 and that his proposed 
endeavor is to continue to work in his new position. 2 He stated that his undertaking involves managing 
"the finances and administration of infrastructure projects such as highways, roadways, bridges and 
dams throughout the US, from inception through financial closing and final construction." 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
With regard to the first prong ofDhanasar, the Director concluded that "[t]his criterion has been met." 
However, the decision does not identify the evidence or sufficiently explain the basis for this 
determination. The Director should analyze the evidence to determine if the Petitioner's proposed 
2 As the Petitioner's August 2021 promotion to CFO happened after the filing of the petition, and therefore would not 
establish his eligibility at the time of filing, it does not assist him in establishing that he meets the requirements set forth 
in the Dhanasar framework. The petition in this matter was filed in March 2021, and the Petitioner has the burden of 
proof to establish eligibility for the requested benefit at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b)( I), ( 12); see also Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 l&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971) (providing that "Congress did not intend that a petition that was properly 
denied because the beneficiary was not at that time qualified be subsequently approved at a future date when the beneficiary 
may become qualified under a new set of facts"). 
2 
endeavor has national or global implications in the financial management field, significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers, or other substantial positive economic effects for the nation. If the Director 
concludes that the Petitioner's documentation does not meet the substantial merit or national 
importance requirements of Dhanasar' s first prong, his decision should discuss the insufficiencies in 
the evidence and adequately explain the reasons for ineligibility. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
As evidence for Dhanasar' s second prong, the Petitioner presented his academic records and letters 
from employers and colleagues discussing his work experience and infrastructure projects. The 
Director determined that that Petitioner did not meet this prong because "[t]he evidence submitted 
does not support the statements that the Petitioner will be able to make a significant contribution. The 
evidence of record does not show that you have made a significant contribution as of the time of filing 
this petition or that you will now be able to make a significant contribution in the U.S." While a 
petitioner's record of success and progress towards achieving their endeavor are relevant factors for 
consideration under prong two of the Dhanasar framework, there is no requirement that a petitioner 
demonstrate "a significant contribution" in order to satisfy this prong. The Director's statements on 
this issue are therefore withdrawn. To determine whether an individual is 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's analyses are "unsubstantiated and conclusory" and 
that the Director did not "address any of the legal arguments or documents submitted." We agree with 
the Petitioner's assertion that his arguments and evidence for prong two were not given due 
consideration in the Director's decision. An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa 
petition in order to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an 
opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l )(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 
20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denial to allow 
the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Here, the 
Director's decision did not adequately address the evidence submitted with the petition or in response 
to the RFE. 
Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner does not meet the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. Any new determination by the Director must consider all of the 
evidence offered for prong two. 3 If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's documentation does 
not meet Dhanasar's second prong, his decision should discuss the insufficiencies in his evidence and 
adequately explain the reasons for ineligibility. 
3 The Director should analyze the specific content of the letters from Petitioner's employers and colleagues and evaluate 
his academic credentials to determine if this documentation renders him well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
3 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890-91. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded the Petitioner had not shown that it would be impractical 
for an employer to obtain a labor certification, that there is an urgency in his contributions sufficient to 
warrant forgoing the labor certification process, that his work will directly lead to the creation of jobs, or 
that the United States will benefit from his contributions. Regarding these conclusions, the Director's 
decision did not specifically address the Petitioner's arguments and evidence submitted at time of 
initial filing and in response to the RFE. The Director also stated that because the Petitioner had not 
satisfied both the first and second prongs of the Dhanasar framework, he therefore did not meet prong 
three. 4 We agree with the Petitioner's contentions on appeal that the Director's decision did not 
discuss specific evidence or address his legal arguments for Dhanasar' s third prong. Without a proper 
evaluation of the factors identified in Dhanasar's third prong, the Director's determination for this 
prong was in error. If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's documentation does not meet this 
prong, his decision should address all of the Petitioner's arguments and evidence, and explain the 
relative decisional weight given to each balancing factor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We are therefore remanding the petition for the Director to properly apply all three prongs of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework to determine if the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4 This statement is not consistent with the Director's determination on page 4 of the denial decision indicating that the 
Petitioner had met the requirements of Dhanasar's first prong. 
4