This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to establish national importance of the proposed endeavor under the first Dhanasar prong, and also withdrew the Director's finding that the petitioner was well-positioned under the second prong.
The petitioner, a financial manager, sought an EB-2 National Interest Waiver to establish a firm providing financial and administrative advisory services to small and medium-sized businesses hurt by COVID-19. The Texas Service Center Director denied the petition, finding no national importance but accepting that the petitioner was well-positioned. On de novo review, the AAO agreed there was no national importance—the proposed services would benefit only the petitioner's direct clients, not the broader economy—and additionally withdrew the Director's favorable finding on well-positioning, noting the record lacked credible evidence of meaningful progress or relevant support from investors or clients. Because two of the three Dhanasar prongs were unmet, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching the third prong.
What failed: 1. The proposed endeavor—providing financial advice to local small businesses—was found to benefit only direct clients, not the national economy broadly, similar to how teaching benefits only enrolled students. 2. The business plan's projected hiring of 13 employees and modest tax revenue was too small-scale to demonstrate substantial positive economic effects at a national level. 3. Expert opinion letters and client recommendation letters were too generic or internally inconsistent to demonstrate national importance or meaningful well-positioning.
Takeaway: For an EB-2 NIW in financial services, petitioners must articulate and document concrete broader economic or societal implications of their work—not just the value to individual clients. Evidence such as policy influence, industry-wide innovations, or independently verifiable large-scale economic impact is needed to satisfy the national importance prong.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-2-NIW criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The proposed endeavor—providing financial advice to local small businesses—was found to benefit only direct clients, not the national economy broadly, similar to how teaching benefits only enrolled students
- The business plan's projected hiring of 13 employees and modest tax revenue was too small-scale to demonstrate substantial positive economic effects at a national level
- Expert opinion letters and client recommendation letters were too generic or internally inconsistent to demonstrate national importance or meaningful well-positioning.
Advanced degree qualification — the Director's finding that petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional was undisturbed.
Three articles on the importance of small and medium-sized businesses to the U.S. economy — did not demonstrate broader national implications of the petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.
Expert opinion letters commissioned by the petitioner — discussed general importance of the industry and petitioner's background but did not analyze the broader implications or national importance of the proposed endeavor; one letter contained a conflicting name reference undermining its reliability.
Three recommendation letters from prior clients — described competent services rendered but did not establish prospective national-level impact beyond the individual businesses served.
Business plan projecting 13 employees and $162,745 in tax revenue over five years — insufficient to show substantial positive economic effect commensurate with national importance.
Company registration and ongoing operation — insufficient as evidence of meaningful progress toward the proposed endeavor.
The Director incorrectly found the petitioner was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar prong two; the AAO withdrew this finding.
Completed
I-140 filed
Financial manager seeking to establish a firm providing financial and administrative advisory services to small and medium-sized businesses
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2024-05-30
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to establish national importance of the proposed endeavor under the first Dhanasar prong, and also withdrew the Director's finding that the petitioner was well-positioned under the second prong.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee