dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Compliance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 11, 2024 In Re: 28538808 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a compliance 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 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 the record did not 
establish 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 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 I&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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, but she did not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance as 
required to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. For the 
reasons set forth below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework and will dismiss the appeal accordingly. 
On appeal, the Petitioner alleges that the Director "imposed novel substantive and evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in regulations." Except where a different standard is specified by 
law, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing immigration benefit 
requests. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 7 5 (AAO 201 0); see also Matter ofMartinez, 21 
I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); Matter of Soo Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151, 152 (BIA 1965). 
Accordingly, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing national interest 
waiver petitions. See generally l USCIS Policy Manual, E.4(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. While the Petitioner asserts on appeal that she has provided evidence sufficient to 
demonstrate her eligibility for a national interest waiver, she does not further explain or identify any 
specific instance in which the Director applied requirements or a standard of proof other than the 
preponderance of evidence in denying the petition. 
The Petitioner further argues the Director "did not give due regard to" certain pieces of evidence, 
including: her resume, her business plan and personal statement, evidence of her work in the field, 
letters of recommendation, and industry reports and articles. However, the Director noted that their 
decision was the result of "a review of the petition and all of the supporting evidence." Additionally, 
we have reviewed the entirety of the record de novo in rendering our decision on the Petitioner's 
appeal. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor met the 
national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The first prong, substantial 
merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual 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. Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor appears to involve working as a "compliance manager" within the 
financial field in the United States. In the professional plan submitted with her Form I-140, the 
Petitioner stated her proposed endeavor would "be to continue offering my expertise to help combat 
critical issues that are of national concern, like money laundering and terrorist financing." 
Specifically, she proposed she would work as a "Compliance Manager for financial institutions in the 
2 
United States." We acknowledge the various documents the Petitioner provided regarding compliance 
and financial issues and related fields. However, when determining whether a proposed endeavor 
would have substantial merit or national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed 
endeavor. Id. at 889-890. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual ("The term 'endeavor' is more specific than the general 
occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but 
what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that occupation.") Simply 
being employed in an occupation does not constitute an endeavor for the purposes of these 
proceedings. Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889-890. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), requesting a detailed description of the proposed 
endeavor and documentary evidence to support the claim of national importance. In response to the 
Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted documents, including a business plan that was filed after the 
Petitioner filed her Form I-140, outlining a different goal that she intends to pursue which involves 
growing a company in the United States, focusing on "providing specialized consultancy and training 
focused on AML [(anti-money laundering)] compliance to U.S. companies and businesses needing 
secure, reliable, trustworthy safety in their financial operations and transactions within the U.S. 
market." 2 The Petitioner proposed she would leverage her "years of experience with financial 
compliance and regulations sector" to "generate more jobs for U.S. workers, as well as significant and 
profitable opportunities for the national economy." Specifically, the Petitioner intends to serve as an 
investor in and CEO of the company. Towards that end she will: "determin[ e] and formulat[ e] policies 
and provide overall direction of the company within the guidelines set up by a board of directors or 
similar governing body, planning or coordinating operational activities at the highest level of 
management with subordinate executives and staff managers." 
The Petitioner has not provided information sufficient to illustrate how she will realize her goal of 
offering her expertise to companies in the United States or how she will be engaged as a Compliance 
Manager by U.S. companies. She has also not described how she will apportion her time between 
working as a Compliance Manager and working as a CEO of her proposed company. Nor has she 
detailed whether she will focus on one of these activities instead of the other. The Petitioner must 
resolve this ambiguity in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. 
Without more information about her specific proposed endeavor and how she will apply her 
knowledge and experience in the United States, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established her 
proposed endeavor for us to determine that her work in the United States will have national 
importance. In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must 
rely on the specific proposed endeavor to determine whether it has national importance under the 
Dhanasar 's first prong. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it is 
qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). In 
evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality. Id. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
2 A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l2). 
3 
Even considering the evidence of her proposed endeavor as if it had been defined with sufficient 
specificity, we find no error in the Director's conclusion that she did not establish its national 
importance. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the proposed endeavor 
would have impact beyond a single employer, client, or project or demonstrate it would impact the 
compliance or finance industry more broadly. We have reviewed the Petitioner's business plan and 
agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish her proposed endeavor would 
"have broader implications rising to the level of having national importance." Although any basic 
economic activity has the potential to positively impact a local economy, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how the economic activity directly resulting from her proposed endeavor would rise to 
the level of national importance. In her business plan, the Petitioner indicated her proposed company 
would generate 36 jobs and generate $1.5 million dollars in revenue in the first five years of business. 
However, the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections. 
Further, even if sufficient basis were provided for the proposed endeavor's revenue and job creation 
projections, these figures do not establish that the Petitioner's company would operate on a scale rising 
to the level of national importance. The Petitioner has not explained how her proposed employment 
metrics and revenue would impact her company's area of intended operations. 
Finally, regarding the reports and articles about the Petitioner's industry, when determining the 
national importance of a proposed endeavor, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, 
sector, or profession in which the individual will work; rather, we focus on "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. 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. As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established her proposed endeavor with sufficient 
specificity such that we can determine if her work would have national importance when considering 
that endeavor, rather than the broader field of financial regulation and compliance. 
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, and the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 
n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise 
ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not established she 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