dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 18, 2024 In Re: 35284677 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
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 of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant 
this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the 
national interest to do so. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states USCIS may, as matter 
of discretion,1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeal in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• 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 Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification.2 The issue 
on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established the national importance of his proposed endeavor, 
as required under the first prong of Dhanasar. We conclude that he has not.3 
The Petitioner currently works in the United States for a financial services company as its head of 
customer onboarding and know your client (KYC). On the Form 1-140 petition, the Petitioner states 
he proposes to work in the United States as a KYC strategies consultant with the nontechnical job 
description, "developing KYC strategies for customer onboarding, addressing customer data 
management, due diligence[, and] preventing money laundering." This nontechnical job description 
is similar to the Petitioner's detailed explanation of his job responsibilities at his current employment. 
The Petitioner, however, did not clearly explain his proposed endeavor, instead providing general, 
broad statements. For instance, the Petitioner includes a general statement that he would like to bring 
his KYC knowledge and skills on a broader scale to the United States and its financial and banking 
industry, stating that he "envisions and anticipates playing both a traditional and trailblazing role in 
strengthening and guiding the future of KYC in the [United States]." 
The Director requested further evidence to support the Petitioner's claims relating to Dhanasar 's three 
prongs. In his request for evidence reply, the Petitioner provided some further details about his 
proposed endeavor. Speaking to the impracticality of obtaining a labor certification, he states that he 
plans "to cut ties with his long-time employer to embark independently on launching his proposed 
endeavor as a KYC/anti-money laundering (AML) entrepreneur and/or [s]trategies [c]onsultant." In 
anticipation of new KYC and AML regulations for the sports betting industry, the Petitioner maintains 
sports betting companies will need to implement changes to be compliant with any new regulations. 
With his KYC and AML knowledge with financial services technology, and his passion for sports tech 
start-ups, he claims he would be uniquely positioned "to create a single industry standard and solution 
for all U.S. based sports betting companies allowing them to focus on fan experience while preventing 
money laundering through their systems" by and through his future endeavor's KYC and AML 
strategies consulting. In addition, he generally mentions "actively exploring entrepreneurial 
oppmtunities in the realm of sports integrity," which is "to detect and deter fraud, match-fixing game 
manipulation, and other unethical or illegal betting-related activities." 
In his claims of national importance, the Petitioner stresses the importance, growth, and increasing 
relevance of KYC and AML to the finance and banking industry, and the expected increase in demand 
for experienced professionals in the finance and banking and industry and in other industries. He 
2 The Director stated in a request for evidence under the heading "E21 Exceptional Ability" that the Petitioner "submitted 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate [the Petitioner] qualif[ied] for the classification sought E21" but provided no analysis. 
We agree that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification, but as an advanced degree professional because he has 
earned a master of business management from a United States institution of higher education. 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
explains the importance of KYC and AML procedures and practices being "essential for enhancing 
national security, reducing costs, precluding criminal activity and supporting the transparency of 
capital flows whether domestic or across borders." Claiming his endeavor has potential broader 
impacts on the nation, he highlights the importance of KYC and AML to protect U.S. national security 
based on recent geopolitical events and sanctions, namely the conflict in Ukraine and the influx of 
migrants to the United States. He explains the Ukraine conflict has increased the need for KYC and 
AML due diligence to help banks identify and manage risks associated with international sanctions to 
prevent those on sanction lists from funding the Ukraine conflict and circumventing sanctions. Also, 
he claims the recent influx of migrants to the United States increases the need for KYC and AML to 
identify and prevent funding for human trafficking. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance 
of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. 
Even though the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the 
Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish his endeavor is of national importance. The 
Director found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his endeavor would extend beyond his 
managerial responsibilities to impact his field more broadly commensurate with national importance. 
Noting that although the record supports the importance of KYC and AML in the financial services 
industry, the Petitioner did not submit evidence sufficient to show the potential prospective impact of 
his endeavor rising to the level of national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner provides a brief 
statement claiming that the Director did not assess all documentary evidence or apply the appropriate 
legal standard under Dhanasar.4 
Upon de nova review, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. The Director provided a reasoned consideration to the petition and made adequate findings. 
The Director was not required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor was it 
necessary for the Director to address every piece of evidence the Petitioner presents. See Guaman­
Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st 
Cir.1992)); see also Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena 
v. U.S. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). Here, although the Director did not analyze every 
piece of evidence, the decision reflects a reasoned consideration of the evidence. 
With respect to weighing the evidence, the standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of 
the evidence, meaning that a petitioner must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or 
"probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has 
met the burden under the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the 
4 In his Form 1-290B, Notice of Motion or Appeal, the Petitioner marked that he would submit a brief and/or additional 
evidence within 30 days of filing this appeal. As of the date of this decision, we have not received a brief or additional 
evidence regarding this appeal. Our decision is based on the Petitioner's statement on the Form 1-290B asserting the 
Director failed to assess all of the evidence, did not apply the appropriate legal standard under Dhanasar, and requested 
we conduct a de novo review of the Director's decision. 
3 
quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter of E-M-, 20 
l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, the Director, in evaluating whether the Petitioner had 
established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, weighed all the evidence but 
determined that the evidence overall lacked probative value. 
The documentation in the record does not provide sufficient details about his proposed endeavor or 
insight as to how the Petitioner intends to impact the fields of KYC and AML, the economy, or national 
security more broadly as an individual working as a KYC strategies consultant to the finance and 
banking industry or any other industries. The Petitioner's claims that his KYC strategies consulting 
activities stand to provide broader impact on his field and the nation have not been established through 
independent and objective evidence. The Petitioner's statements are not sufficient to demonstrate his 
claims and must be supported with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Also, without sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed job 
duties as a KYC strategies consultant for the finance and banking industry or any other industry would 
impact his field or the nation more broadly, rather than benefiting his prospective employers and his 
proposed clients, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his 
proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
To support his claims, the Petitioner submitted industry articles relating to the future of KYC 
compliance; trends in digital KYC implementation; KYC for banking and financial services; 
differences between KYC and AML; value of identity verification; importance of KYC to customer 
loyalty, advocacy, and business growth; the threat of Russia to the world and of its alliance with North 
Korea; Russia circumventing sanctions; and price caps on Russian oil. We recognize the importance 
and benefits of KYC and AML to the finance and banking industry and other industries. However, 
merely working as a KYC strategies consultant or as a KYC manager for a financial services company, 
or starting a KYC strategies consulting business, is insufficient to establish the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor. As noted above, the growth and importance of an industry or working in a 
field with an expected demand for workers are not sufficient to meet the national importance 
requirement under the Dhanasar framework. Instead of focusing on the importance of an industry or 
field, or a need for professionals in a field, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake" and consider the endeavor's "potential prospective impact." Id. at 
889. The articles submitted do not discuss his endeavor having the claimed broader impact to his field, 
or the claimed economic or national security impacts specifically attributable to his proposed 
endeavor. 
Next, the Petitioner claims his professional experience in the KYC and AM I field benefits his current 
employer and the finance and banking industry. The Petitioner indicates that he is ready to leverage 
4 
his experience and entrepreneurial aspirations to develop a national and international financial 
transactional framework as the fields of KYC and AML expand beyond the banking and finance 
industry to other industries. To support his claims, the Petitioner submitted recommendation letters 
from his colleagues to show his professional experience, skills, and knowledge in his field. 
The Petitioner's reliance, however, on his professional knowledge and experience to establish the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor is misplaced. The letters do not discuss his proposed 
endeavor or show its national importance, but instead relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. Dhanasar 's second prong "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
national." Id. The letters mainly attest to the Petitioner's professional competencies and his dedication 
to his employers and the field of KYC and AML. While a few recommendation letters mention that 
the Petitioner's work would contribute to helping his employers, an educational organization, and his 
field, the letters lack details of the Petitioner's endeavor and mainly describe his professional 
experience and generally state with broad statements that his endeavor is of importance based on his 
experience. The Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence based on these 
recommendation letters to demonstrate the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the 
level of national importance. 
Last, the Petitioner contends his endeavor is aligned with laws, regulations, and government policies 
mandating reporting and compliance programs to detect and prevent money laundering. However, he 
has not demonstrated the potential prospective impact of his specific endeavor to such nationally 
important matters. He uses general terms to highlight the importance of KYC and AML laws and 
regulations, maintaining his endeavor aligns with the U.S. government's support for transparency and 
regulation in the transfer of financial and digital assets. While the importance of the U.S. government 
policies, laws, and regulations are not in dispute, their overall significance does not establish the 
national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular. It does not follow that an 
individual providing KYC strategies consulting to businesses in the finance and banking industries or 
in any other industry has national importance. Working in or establishing a business in a field which 
is the subject of U.S. government laws, regulations, or policies is insufficient on its own to establish 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake" and consider the endeavor's "potential prospective 
impact." Id. The Petitioner makes general statements about his KYC strategies consulting aligning 
with national initiatives but does not sufficiently detail his endeavor or quantify its expected impact in 
the identified areas of national concern, or provide objective, probative evidence to support his 
contentions. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has the potential to extend beyond his 
prospective employers, future clients, and consulting business to impact the field or any other 
industries or the U.S. economy or national security more broadly at alevel commensurate with national 
importance. Beyond general assertions, he has not demonstrated that the work he proposes to 
undertake as a KYC strategies consultant offers the claimed contributions to advancements in the KYC 
and AML fields or otherwise has broader implications for his fields. Statements and claims alone are 
not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Assertions made 
without supporting documentation are of limited probative value and do not carry the weight to satisfy 
the Petitioner's burden of proof. See Matter of Soffici, 22 l&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998). The 
5 
Petitioner's claims depend on numerous factors, and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct 
evidentiary tie between his proposed KYC strategies consulting work and the claimed results. 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, and therefore he has not demonstrated 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. We note that the Director determined that the Petitioner is 
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong,5 but, 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 under Dhanasar's third prong. Because the identified basis for denial is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not reach, and therefore reserve his appellate arguments and 
determination of his eligibility under the second and third prongs of Dhanasar. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make 
"purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
111. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 Although the Director determined the Petitioner met Dhanasar's second prong, the decision did not provide an 
explanation or analysis of the evidence for this finding. 
6