dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 13, 2025 In Re: 35931897 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, seeks second preference immigrant classification 
(EB-2) for the Beneficiary, an assistant vice president, as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this 
EB-2 classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer 
requirement in the national interest. 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 apreponderance 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 a/Christa '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 anational interest waiver, a beneficiary must first qualify 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 the beneficiary's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they 
must then establish that the beneficiary merits 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 
that USCIS may, as matter of discretion,1 grant anational interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates 
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). 
that: 
• The beneficiary's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The beneficiary 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 Beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. Upon de 
novo review, we agree with the Director's determination that although the Petitioner demonstrated the 
Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, it did not establish the endeavor is of national 
importance, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 2 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor a beneficiary 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. To evaluate whether the proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement we focus on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake and 
look to evidence documenting its "potential prospective impact." Id. 
The Beneficiary currently works in the United States for the Petitioner, a financial services company, 
as an assistant vice president supporting its digital payments transaction processing system. The 
Beneficiary proposes to continue working in his current position, which entails optimizing the 
Petitioner's payments transaction processing capability using cloud computing, advanced computing 
data storage solutions, data processing and analysis techniques, and digital identity infrastructure 
technology. Specifically, the Beneficiary monitors its payments processing data feeds, ensures 
compliance with legal and business requirements, and identifies and resolves issues with the data feeds 
and pipelines, application outages, and performance issues. The Petitioner explains that the 
Beneficiary's work helps reduce risks and suspicious money laundering activity, contributes to the 
efficiency and reliability of its digital payments transaction operations, and ensures compliance with 
legislation. Stressing that it manages over a trillion dollars in assets, the Petitioner maintains the 
Beneficiary's work is critical to ensuring the security and reliability of its payments transaction 
processing and preserving the stability of the U.S. and global financial services systems. 
We agree with the Director that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues the Director erred in its review of the evidence and application of the 
law by failing to apply the proper standard of proof, and instead imposing a more stringent standard 
than preponderance of the evidence. In assessing the evidence relating to the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner contends the Director disregarded probative evidence about "the 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
impact of the [B]eneficiary's endeavor on critical U.S. economic, national security, and technological 
interests" leading to the improper conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish the national 
importance of the Beneficiary's proposer endeavor. Given the Petitioner's global standing in the 
financial services industry and its contributions of significant revenue to the U.S. economy, the 
Petitioner contends the Benefiicary's work is "an essential element of [its] ability to properly and 
securely process tremendous volumes of financial transactions on behalf of customers and the 
American public each year." 
We disagree with the Petitioner's claims that the Director disregarded evidence and misapplied the 
law when analyzing the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor. To determine 
whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance of the evidence standard, we 
consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and 
credibility) of the evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376; see also Matter of E-M-, 
20 l&N Dec. 77, 79- 80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, the Director acknowledged and analyzed documents 
submitted, including the Petitioner's statements, letters, articles, and reports, but determined overall 
that the quality of the evidence lacked probative value in supporting its claim that the proposed 
endeavor is of national importance. The the proposed endeavor, whilst substantially meritorious, does 
not have the claimed potential prospective national or even global impact to the field, or broader 
implications rising to a level of national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar.3 
In determining national importance, the Petitioner contends that the Director erroneously focused on 
the Beneficiary's specific occupational classification and job title of assistant vice president, instead 
of focusing on his proposed endeavor. We acknowledge that an endeavor is more specific than a 
general occupation and job title, and is, instead, the work that a beneficiary proposes to undertake 
specifically within such occupation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https: 
//www.uscis.gov /policy-manual. The relevant question is not the importance of a profession, field, or 
industry in which a beneficiary will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake" and the endeavor's "potential prospective impact." Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. While the Director's decision states the Beneficiary's title is assistant 
vice president, its analysis does not focus on the occupation and title of assistant vice president, but 
instead focuses on the proposed work the Beneficiary intends to do and its potential prospective 
impact. 
The proposed endeavor, as described, and the evidence in the record do not support the Petitioner's 
assertions that the potential impact of the endeavor extends beyond the Petitioner and its clients to 
have a broader impact commensurate with national importance. Although the Petitioner argues that 
the USCIS Policy Manual does not specifically state that an endeavor must extend beyond a 
beneficiary's employer to be of national importance, the Petitioner otherwise contends that the 
Beneficiary's endeavor would have potential prospective impact beyond its company and clients, 
extending to the national and global economies, national security, and societal welfare. As explained 
3 The Petitioner points out that contrary to the Director 's conclusions, the Director's decision states, "[the Beneficiary ' s] 
work will have an impact on the field." We acknowledge the decision includes this statement and the Director's meaning 
of this statement is not explained and is unclear. However, the Director otherwise analyzes the evidence and explains how 
the evidence does not demonstrate the broader impact of the Beneficiary 's endeavor rises to the level commensurate with 
national importance. 
3 
in Dhanasar and as emphasized in the USCIS Policy Manual, an endeavor "may have national 
importance because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. at 889 - 890; see generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(l) . In addition, Dhanasar explains that economically, an endeavor 
with "significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or "other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area" may be of national importance. Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 l&N Dec. at 889 - 890. Whereas, endeavors such as classroom teaching, for example, without 
broader implications for a field or region, generally do not rise to the level of having national 
importance for the purpose of establishing eligibility for a national interest waiver. See id. at 893. 
Here, much of the evidence in the record and the Petitioner's arguments focus on the importance of 
digital payments, payment security, artificial intelligence, the field of financial services, and the 
Petitioner's reach and impact on the financial services industry and the U.S. and global economies, 
instead of focusing on the Beneficiary's specific endeavor having a prospective impact on these 
matters. For instance, the record includes articles and reports discussing the growth of digital 
payments; cybersecurity and protecting consumer financial privacy; effects of banking distress on the 
U.S. economy; investment in artificial intelligence; and the importance of immigrant worker on the 
science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. However, the importance of the digital 
payments field and the financial services industry is not in dispute, but their overall significance and 
the need for qualified workers in such fields and industries does not establish the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor. The reports and articles do not discuss the Beneficiary's specific work 
having the claimed broader impact to his field, the economy, societal welfare, or national security. 
Moreover, if in fact STEM worker shortages can be addressed by adding qualified professionals like 
the Beneficiary, they would be better addressed through the U.S. Department of Labor's labor 
certification process. 
In addition, we recognize U.S. national initiatives to advance STEM and strengthening our nation's 
technology, particularly technology recognized by the U.S. National Science and Technology Council 
as critical and emerging. However, the Beneficiary working with critical and emerging technologies, 
including artificial intelligence, cloud computing, cloud computing data security, and digital 
technologies, does not itself establish the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor 
in particular. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(0)(2). While USCIS acknowledges 
specific evidentiary considerations relating to STEM degrees and fields, "the evidence must 
demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance." See id. The 
Petitioner has not specified or provided evidence demonstrating how the Beneficiary's work would 
advance such technologies or have broader implications commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently detailed or provided supporting documentation of the Beneficiary's 
proposed work to understand how it would advance STEM technologies with sufficiently broad 
potential implications for his field or any other industry rising to the level of national importance. The 
Petitioner's statements characterize the Beneficiary's work as valuable for maintaining the reliability 
of the Petitioner's digital payments transaction processing operations, however, they do not 
sufficiently detail how his endeavor would be different from work typically performed by other 
individuals in a similar role with the Petitioner. For instance, the Petitioner has not detailed or 
established plans for the Beneficiary to introduce novel technologies or digital payments transaction 
processing advancements that may be disseminated to or adopted by others operating in the field or 
4 
industry, or otherwise articulate how he will contribute to development of our nation's digital 
payments transaction processing for the financial services industry. Instead, the Petitioner emphasizes 
the Beneficiary leveraging his digital payments transaction processing experience and knowledge to 
positively impact its clients' reliance and use of the Petitioner's financial services. Without further 
evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's work as an assistant vice president 
supporting the digital payments processing transaction processing system for the Petitioner has the 
potential to impact his field more broadly rising to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner provided an opinion letter from a professor of computer science and chair of the 
software engineering program atl Iin New York. While the opinion indicates the 
Beneficiary's endeavor is "to develop innovative, automated data pipelines, data storage frameworks, 
and applications for [the Petitioner's] payments transaction processing operations," it does not detail 
or provide evidence explaining such proposed innovations to determine whether his endeavor is of 
national importance. Moreover, the opinion describes how the Beneficiary's work impacts the 
Petitioner, instead of how the endeavor may have a broader impact beyond the Petitioner. The 
Beneficiary's work, the opinion maintains, helps the Petitioner contribute to the U.S. economy, 
improve its national and international standing, and strengthen its position as a leader in the financial 
sector while minimizing risk to investors and contributing to the overall stability of the financial sector. 
The opinion also explains cloud computing, digital identity technology, and advanced computing, 
noting that the Beneficiary's work utilizing these technologies is of critical importance to national 
security, which is in accordance with national initiatives supporting advancement of critical and 
emerging technologies and of STEM professionals. While the opinion indicates the Beneficiary will 
utilize such critical and emerging technologies, it does not explain how the Beneficiary will advance 
such technologies and impact the national initiatives. As discussed above, the opinion's focus on the 
importance and need for STEM professionals working with critical and emerging technologies does 
not demonstrate that the instant specific endeavor would have a prospective impact in the field. Stating 
that working with cloud computing, digital payments transaction processing, and advanced computing 
is of importance, is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar 
framework since it fails to address the potential prospective impact of the Beneficiary's specific 
endeavor. 
The Petitioner's evidence otherwise mainly focuses on the Beneficiary's performance of his job 
responsibilities as an assistant vice president supporting the Petitioner's digital payments transaction 
processing system. The evidence does not, however, demonstrate the claims that the Beneficiary's 
endeavor would have the claimed broader implications in the field, a significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers, substantial positive economic effects, or significant potential to impact societal welfare, 
as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. 
For instance, a letter from a vice president with the Petitioner describes the Beneficiary's current role 
with the Petitioner stating, the Beneficiary's work "has played a critical role in the advancement of 
the Petitioner's payments transaction processing capabilities" and has supported the financial stability 
of the Petitioner and other financial institutions with "critical contributions to the U.S. financial 
industry." Another letter from a vice president - principal technology manager with the Petitioner 
similarly describes the Beneficiary's role with the Petitioner stating, the Beneficiary's contributions 
are "unique and have significantly advanced the digital payments processing capabilities of financial 
5 
institutions operating in the U.S. financial sector .... " The Petitioner's letters make broad assertions 
about the prospective impact of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor, instead of providing evidence 
detailing the Beneficiary's claimed unique contributions, or how the Beneficiary's work specifically 
has advanced his field, impacted other financial institutions, or made critical contributions to the U.S. 
financial industry. The Petitioner also provided letters from the Beneficiary's previous colleagues 
which detail his work with his former employers while making broad assertions that his proposed work 
will benefit the Petitioner's payments transaction operations and the financial industry. Similar to the 
letters from the Petitioner, these letters also do not detail how the Petitioner's specific work would 
impact the financial industry more broadly. The recommendation letters attest to the Beneficiary's 
technical knowledge and his work, which mainly relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, instead of specifying the endeavor's prospective impact. 
The Petitioner does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor extends beyond its 
business and its clients to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly 
at a level commensurate with national importance. Beyond general assertions, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the work the Beneficiary proposes to undertake as assistant vice president for its 
digital transactions processing systems offers the claimed original innovations that contribute to 
advancements in the financial services, digital payments transactions, and artificial intelligence 
industries or otherwise has broader implications for the financial services field. The claimed economic 
and societal welfare benefits depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently 
direct evidentiary tie between the Beneficiary's proposed work for its digital payments transaction 
processing system and the claimed impacts. 
The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary is well­
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong, 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 under Dhanasar's third prong. Because the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish the 
Beneficiary qualifies for the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, it has not demonstrated 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. This identified basis for dismissal is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, and therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments and 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). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, it has not 
established the Beneficiary's eligibility 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. 
6