dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 27, 2025 In Re: 36286142 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a global financial and investment services company, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification for the Beneficiary 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 
demonstrate the Beneficiary merits a discretionary waiver of the job off requirement 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 l&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 beneficiary must first establish they are either 
an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or 
business. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
If a petitioner demonstrates the beneficiary 's 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: 
• 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 Director determined that the Beneficiary qualifies for the underlying EB-2 immigrant 
classification as an advanced degree professional. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the 
Petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's conclusion that 
the Petitioner demonstrated the substantial merit of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor, but did not 
establish its national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 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. 
The Petitioner intends to employ the Beneficiary in the position of vice president to utilize artificial 
intelligence (AI) including "machine learning and deep learning methodologies to develop and 
optimize critical financial models that forecast price movement and competitor pricing to maximize 
[p]rofit and [l]oss ("PnL") and increase liquidity for account holders." More specifically, the 
Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary will "develop and optimize various financial models, including 
customer pricing, market impact, win-chance, and basis yield models... which would enable the 
Petitioner to quickly, accurately, and securely execute critical financial transactions while minimizing 
risks and optimizing investment strategies based on pricing forecasts." According to the Petitioner, 
this work would enhance the ability of financial institutions to more reliably and securely facilitate the 
transfer of funds, and support the stability of the U.S. economy and global financial system. 
Additionally, they asserted that the Beneficiary's work directly contributes to the Petitioner's sustained 
profits, and improved customer confidence in their investment and live-trade decisions. Accordingly, 
the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary's work would allow it to contribute significant revenue to 
the U.S. economy and to maintain its national and international standing as a leader in the financial 
field. 
In support of the Beneficiary's endeavor, the Petitioner submitted multiple recommendation letters 
from the Beneficiary's colleagues and manager, an expert opinion letter, and several industry articles 
and government publications regarding the financial services field and its designation as a critical 
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). 
2 
infrastructure sector, the importance of AI and machine learning methodologies as well as its 
application in strengthening the financial sector, and governmental interest in expanding emerging 
technologies including AI and machine learning methodologies. 2 
After review, the Director concluded that the record showed the Beneficiary's endeavor has substantial 
merit, but the Petitioner did not establish the endeavor was nationally important. Specifically, while 
acknowledging the impact of the Beneficiary's work to the Petitioner's operations, as well as the 
Petitioner's overall importance to the financial services industry, the Director nonetheless concluded 
that that the record did not demonstrate that the broader implications of the Beneficiary's specific work 
would impact the industry at a level commensurate with national importance, or otherwise result in 
substantial economic effects contemplated in Dhanasar. See Dhanasar at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief as well as copies of its initial filing and response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), and contends that the evidence in the record establishes the 
Beneficiary's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. The Petitioner also generally 
asserts that the Director applied a heightened standard of proof in their evaluation of the record, did 
not properly consider the evidence establishing the Beneficiary's eligibility, and incorrectly applied 
relevant laws and regulations relating to the adjudication of national interest waivers. As an example 
of this, the Petitioner contends that the Director's determination that the Beneficiary's work appeared 
to primarily benefit his employer and would not sufficiently extend beyond its clients to impact the 
field more broadly is incorrect and against policy, noting that the USCIS policy does not mandate that 
"the beneficiary's endeavor must provide a greater benefit to the U.S. nationally than to the 
beneficiary's employer." And the Petitioner contends, that given its standing within the financial 
industry which allows it to contribute significant revenue to the U.S. economy, the Beneficiary's 
contributions to the company are nationally important as they allow it to continue to impact the U.S. 
economy. The Petitioner also claims that the Director erroneously focused on the Beneficiary's job 
title rather than nature of his work, and did not address or evaluate the recommendation letters and 
expert opinion letters submitted, which the Petitioner believes established the national importance of 
the endeavor. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is 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 
I&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 quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Upon 
de novo review of the record, we conclude that, while the Petitioner has established the substantial 
merit of the Beneficiary's endeavor, the record does not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
that the Beneficiary's endeavor will result in broader implications to the industry at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
In Dhanasar we explained that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because 
it has national or even global implications within a particular field such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Dhanasar at 889. Accordingly, we 
determined that teaching activities would not rise to the level of having national importance because 
they would generally not impact a field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, we agree that the record 
2 While we do not discuss every piece of evidence in the record, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
establishes Beneficiary's proposed endeavor will support the Petitioner's operations, but does not 
show that his work will result in broader implications to the field or otherwise result in substantial 
positive economic effects commensurate with national importance. 
As a preliminary matter, we disagree with the Petitioner's contention that the Director's decision 
focused on the Beneficiary's position title rather than the nature of his proposed endeavor. The 
Director's decision contains language explicitly referencing the Beneficiary's objectives to utilize 
machine learning and deep learning methodologies to develop critical financial models for the 
Petitioner. While we acknowledge the brevity in which the Director discussed the Beneficiary's 
endeavor, the Director's decision does nonetheless discuss the Beneficiary's specific role and 
endeavor, beyond just his job title. Moreover, for the reasons discussed herein, we conclude that the 
evidence in the record does not support the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary's endeavor is 
nationally important. And therefore, any alleged error is, at most, harmless. See generally Matter of 
O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. at, 350 n.5 (citing Japarkulova v. Holder, 615 F.3d 696, 701 (6th Cir. 2010) 
(stating that error is harmless where there is no "reason to believe that ... remand might lead to a 
different result" ( citation omitted))). It is not enough to demonstrate errors in an agency's decision; 
the Petitioner must also establish that they were prejudiced by the mistakes. Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 
U.S. 396, 409 (2009); Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189, 203 (2016); see also Amin v. 
Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's work is national important because "implementation of 
similar solutions could be effectively applied across various institutions within the industry and are 
not just isolated to [the Petitioner]," asserting therefore that the Beneficiary's work "very clearly will 
have broader national implications and indeed potentially global implications within the financial 
services sector." However, the Petitioner has not provided an explanation as to how his work will 
result in broader implications, or otherwise be implemented across various institutions. Without an 
explanation as to how the Beneficiary's solutions "could be effectively applied" the Petitioner has not 
met its burden of proof. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in 
the field have little probative value. See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 
1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits 
adjudications). 
And, on appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor "will certainly play a 
critical role in ensuring the stability and integrity of the financial services sector" given the Petitioner's 
$1.4 trillion in assets under management. However, the Petitioner cannot rely on its market share and 
size alone to establish the importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor. We acknowledge the 
importance of the Petitioner's operations; however, the Petitioner cannot rely on its broader operations 
and impact to the United States alone to establish the importance of the Beneficiary's specific work. 3 
The Petitioner should show how the Beneficiary's specific work would result in broader implications 
to the industry at a level commensurate with national importance, or otherwise result in substantial 
3 Benefits to a specific employer alone. even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the 
question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance. At issue is whether the petitioner can demonstrate that 
the person's own individual endeavor stands to have broader implications, such as for a field, a region, or the public at 
large. See generally USCIS Policy Alert, P A-2025-03, Second Preference Eligibility for National Interest Waiver 
Petitions (Jan. 15, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/202501 l 5-
Employment- BasedN ationallnterestW aivers.pdf 
4 
positive economic effects. Here, while the record contains multiple letters praising the Beneficiary's 
work and his development of financial models which have improved the Petitioner's productivity, 
efficacious, and ability to ensure profitable transactions, beyond asserting that the Petitioner's work 
could impact the industry given the Petitioner's market share, the Petitioner has not explained how his 
work would result in broader implications to the field. 
The testimonial evidence in the record, including the multiple letters ofrecommendation and the expert 
opinion letter also do not provide sufficient explanation as to how the Beneficiary's work would impact 
the field. For example, the letter from L-S commends the Beneficiary's "profound expertise in 
machine learning and deep learning methodologies [which has] enabled [the Petitioner] to advance its 
financial modeling capabilities, optimize customer pricing strategies, and effectively and proactively 
manage market risks." However, L-S- does not provide sufficient explanation regarding the 
prospective benefit of the Beneficiary's work to the field, or explain how it will lead to broader 
implications commensurate with national importance. 
Similarly, the expert opinion letter provides detailed explanation regarding the importance of the 
financial services field and the importance of AI and machine learning and its application to the field, 
but does not provide sufficient explanation as to how the Beneficiary's specific work would impact 
the field. Instead, the expert opines that "his field of endeavor not only improves the compliance, risk 
management, customer trust, and financial stability of a major US employer but also promotes the 
security and stability of the US financial sector as a whole." However, the letter does not provide 
sufficient explanation as to how the Beneficiary's work would impact the sector more broadly. users 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r. 1988). However, users is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding a noncitizen's eligibility. The submission of letters from experts supporting 
the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 
460 n.13 (BIA 2011) ( discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony based on 
relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). 
We also acknowledge the evidence in the record pertaining to the Beneficiary's prior projects executed 
for the Petitioner, including the development of a win chance model and market impact model which 
enhanced the company's capabilities and market reach. While the letters in the record commend the 
Beneficiary for establishing internal procedures and processes that have helped the Petitioner ensure 
the successful transfer of its clients' assets and profits, the record does not identify whether these 
processes would lead to national or global implications within his field commensurate with national 
importance, or could be analogous to the "medical advances" contemplated in Dhanasar. See 
Dhanasar at 889. Moreover, while we acknowledge the Beneficiary's past accomplishments and his 
successful career, a beneficiary's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar' s 
second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary's endeavor "will help advance the U.S. 
interest in attracting and retaining STEM workers, which is critically important given the shortage of 
qualified workers in the field." However, a claimed shortage of workers alone is not sufficient to 
5 
establish the national importance of the Beneficiary's specific work. Similarly, the Petitioner contends 
that the record contains evidence of the federal government's interest in the advancement of U.S. 
capabilities in critical and emerging technologies, which they assert the Beneficiary will accomplish 
"given his efforts to develop and integrate machine learning and deep learning methodologies into the 
financial models that form the foundation of revenue generation strategies and risk management 
frameworks within the financial services industry." However, the Petitioner has not established, for 
example, how the Beneficiary's work will meaningfully impact these broad governmental initiatives. 
A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. We recognize the value of such technological innovations and 
importance of emerging technologies; however, merely working in an important field is insufficient 
to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. As stated, the relevant question is not 
the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the Beneficiary may work; instead, we 
focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. 
Additionally, we also agree with the Director's conclusion that the record does not establish that the 
Beneficiary's endeavor "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." See Dhanasar at 890. 
Although the record discusses the economic impact of the financial services sector, and the collective 
economic impact of the Petitioner's operations, the Petitioner has not shown how the Beneficiary's 
specific work would result in substantial economic benefits discussed in Dhanasar, or provided 
sufficient description of how the Beneficiary's specific work contributed to the company's economic 
impact. Id. 
For all the reasons discussed, the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that 
it has not established the Beneficiary is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve their eligibility and appellate arguments under Dhanasar' s 
remaining prongs. 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6