dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Risk Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
In Re: 35709234 Date: JAN. 21 , 2025 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, _________________ seeks for the Beneficiary, an assistant 
vice president, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver as it did not demonstrate the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor or 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. 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. Matter ofDhanasar , 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 Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals 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 Beneficiary is an assistant vice president at In this position, the Beneficiary 
endeavors to "use machine learning, deep learning, and advanced computing data processing and analysis 
techniques to build statistical models and reporting dashboards and corresponding model validation and 
risk management frameworks, to decrease and manage market risk and increase compliance with 
governing regulations that are critical to a stable financial system." 
In the denial decision, the Director determined the Beneficiary qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa 
classification as an advanced degree professional. The Director also determined the Benefiicary 
demonstrated the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor but did not establish its national 
importance. The Director also found that, on balance, it would not be beneficial to the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's 
merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, 
technology, culture, health, or education. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. In Dhanasar, we 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. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director erroneously misapplied the appropriate legal standard and 
disregarded key, probative evidence. Specifically, the Petitioner contends the Director erred in finding 
the endeavor would be of most benefit to the Beneficiary's employer, as relevant policy does not state the 
endeavor must provide a greater benefit to the U.S. nationally than the Beneficiary's employer. However, 
the Director did not give weight to the relative benefits to the Beneficiary's employer compared to the 
United States. Rather, the Director acknowledged the Beneficiary's employer "may benefit from their 
services," then correctly focused on whether the Petitioner demonstrated whether "this benefit rises to the 
level of national importance .... " Similarly, the Petitioner contends the Director erroneously focused on 
the "specifically occupational classification" ofthe Beneficiary as an assistant vice president for I 
in finding "the petitioner did not submit documentary evidence to demonstrate his proposed 
endeavor as an Assistant Vice President with will have a prospective impact 
at the national or global level in the future." The Petitioner claims this focus on occupation led the Director 
2 
I 
to "discount critical evidence that very clearly demonstrated the national importance ofthe [B]eneficiary's 
proposed endeavor. However, the Director plainly notes in their decision that the "relevant question is 
not the importance of the field or profession in which the individual will work," and "focuses on the 
specific endeavor that the [Beneficiary] proposes to undertake." The Director correctly notes the 
Beneficiary's proposed endeavor, in acting as an assistant vice president! Iincludes work 
in "statistical models, reporting dashboards, and data visualization tools he develops using machine 
learning, deep learning, and advanced computing data processing, and analysis techniques [to] enhance 
______ market risk management capability .... " The Petitioner also claims the Director's 
decision is at odds with itself in finding the testimonial letters of record insufficient to demonstrate 
national importance while acknowledging the importance and great value of assistant vice presidents. 
Just as an endeavor can meet substantial merit without rising to the level of national importance, so can 
the Beneficiary's work be recognized as important and valuable without meeting that Dhanasar standard. 
After review of the record, we concur with the Director that the Petitioner demonstrated the endeavor has 
substantial merit but that it does not rise to the level of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary's endeavor includes "the design and implementation of 
statistical models, reporting dashboards, and model risk validation and management protocols that 
enhance market risk management capabilities through the integration of machine learning, deep learning, 
and advanced computing and data processing and analysis techniques." The Petitioner contends this 
endeavor rises to the level of national importance because it will further U.S. technological capabilities 
with respect to critical and emerging technologies such as machine learning, deep learning, and advanced 
computing data processing and analysis techniques; contribute to sustained revenue generation that will 
benefit U.S. and global economy; and help preserve the stability and integrity of the financial services 
sector. We acknowledge the importance of the field of financial risk management, but the importance of 
the proposed endeavor is not evaluated by the importance of the profession in which he proposes to 
engage, but the specific potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor. Dhanasar at 889-890. 
Similarly, we recognize the value of critical and emerging technologies but merely working in an 
important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of a proposed endeavor. For example, 
classroom teaching activities in these technologies, by themselves, may have substantial merit but are not 
generally indicative themselves of impact on these field more broadly and would generally not establish 
their national importance. Here, the Petitioner has also not shown the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor 
advances these critical and emerging technologies or has broader implications in the field. 
The Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary's employer, Iplays a significant role due to "its 
approximately $1.4 trillion in assets under management," so that the Beneficiary's endeavor is in the 
national interest "as it ensures and the broader financial services industry... is able to 
appropriately anticipate and solve for potential sources of risk that could destabilize the U.S. economy 
before they occur." Despite the size of the Beneficiary's employer and the assets it manages, the 
Petitioner must demonstrate the Beneficiary's own tasks rise to the level ofnationally important endeavor. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's endeavor alone has national implications within 
the field. The Petitioner also claims the Beneficiary's innovations in machine learning, deep learning, 
and advanced computing data processing and analysis techniques have the potential to extend beyond his 
own employer. However, the national importance of these claimed innovations is not detailed, including 
the specific nature of such innovations and how they will impact the field at the requisite level. 
3 
The Petitioner characterized the Director's conclusions regarding the probative value of his letters of 
recommendation as "problematic," asserting the submitted letters constitute important testimonial 
evidence that must be considered. In addition, the Petitioner claims the Director failed to adhere to the 
preponderance of the evidence standard in reviewing the testimonial letters; the Petitioner asserts the 
Director did not acknowledge the significant economic, social, and technologic contributions of the 
Beneficiary's work. However, the Director thoroughly and properly considered the letters ofrecord and 
cited to multiple letters in their decision. The Director acknowledged the letters provide details of the 
Beneficiary's proposed endeavor and state the Beneficiary "contribute[d] significant revenue to the U.S. 
economy... while simultaneously minimizing risk to American investors and to the stability of the U.S. 
financial sector as a whole." However, the Director determined testimonial letter references to the 
significant implications of the Beneficiary's endeavor did not provide specific examples or evidence that 
would establish that the endeavor would have such impact. We concur with the Director that the 
submitted letters contain broad, general assertions that the Beneficiary's work impacts the financial and 
technological sectors at large, but do not provide details of how his specific endeavor will impact the field 
at the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts the evidence demonstrates the Beneficiary's endeavor "will help to advance the 
U.S. interest in attracting and retaining STEM workers, which is critically important given the shortage 
of qualified workers in those fields." As stated by the Director, the alleged shortage of occupations or 
occupational skills does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar 
framework and such shortages are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor 
certification process. Further, the Petitioner asserted the Beneficiary's "standing within the financial 
services industry allows it to contribute significant revenue annually to the U.S. economy" and will 
"stimulate demand for skilled labor." However, aside from these assertions alone, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated the Beneficiary's endeavor as an assistant vice president has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects, as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
B. Additional Dhanasar Prongs 
As our finding on this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and reserve 
whether the Petitioner has met the additional prongs of 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 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 the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4