dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 25, 2024 In Re: 31650526 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial technologies researcher currently residing abroad, seeks employment-based 
second preference immigrant visa classification (EB-2) as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree and 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 although the Petitioner 
qualified for the EB-2 visa classification as an advanced degree professional, he had not established 
eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 Christa'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 first establish that 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. 
Once the 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 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 a 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. 
As stated, the Petitioner must establish that he satisfies the above criteria by a preponderance of the 
evidence. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires the evidence to demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's claims are "probably true" or "more likely than not" based on the specific facts and 
circumstances of his case. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 ( citing Matter ofE-M-, 20 
I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989), and INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987) 
( discussing "more likely than not" as a greater than 50% chance of an occurrence taking place)). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, and the record supports this determination. 2 The only issue on appeal is whether the 
Petitioner has met his burden of proof to establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and 
thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, we 
conclude that he has not met this burden. 
The Petitioner represented on the instant Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, that his 
proposed endeavor is to "[r]esearch, develop, and apply innovative business model approaches 
utilizing emerging technologies in order to produce business model tools for wealth creation." As his 
worksite location, the Petitioner listed the address of the __________ 
In a separate statement the Petitioner described his proposed endeavor as follows: 
My proposed endeavor is to develop and apply innovative model approaches utilizing 
emerging technologies in order to produce business model tools for wealth creation. 
To progress this endeavor, I will utilize my extensive experience with digital business 
models, digital transformation, and digital economy, as well as with the drivers of 
emerging technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain, big data, and 
artificial intelligence. My work will continue to be circulated in the field through my 
peer-reviewed publications in journals and conference proceedings. 
I plan to pursue a faculty position as a professor of information systems in the United 
States. I am most interested in pursuing this position with the
I I My planned research topics include designing and developing data-driven 
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 USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 The record includes evidence that the Petitioner has a doctorate degree (PhD) in industrial engineering. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i). 
2 
business models, IoT-information driven business models and block chain driven 
business models -particularly in the banking and financial sectors. 
Please note that my research at the University of Texas at Dallas will be promoted at 
the national level through the university's research outcomes and newly devised digital 
business logics . . . . Based on my experience in the field, I am confident I can attain 
this, or a very similar position related to my proposed endeavor in the United States. 
In support, the Petitioner initially submitted evidence including3 his curriculum vitae; opinions from 
his peers about the importance of his work and accomplishments in the field of financial technologies; 
multiple publications and articles he either authored or co-authored; Google Scholar citations record, 
2021 McKinsey Global Survey, and a February 2022 report by a subcommittee of the National Science 
and Technology Council titled "Critical and Emerging Technologies List Update" (CET), identifying 
"financial technologies" as one of critical and emerging technology areas of particular importance to 
the national security of the United States. The Petitioner also presented a letter from a manager of 
I 4 who indicated that "[h]aving made significant strides in the 
scientific community, [the Petitioner] ventured to expand his endeavor in the [United States] by 
developing the idea [ of] a startup," and that would "support him with free office space, internet, 
mentorship, and other necessary software and hardware to help him tum his innovative business model 
into a viable product." 
The Director subsequently issued a request for evidence (RFE), advising the Petitioner that the articles 
related to his area of expertise and letters of recommendation discussing his documented research in 
finance technologies were not sufficient to show that his proposed endeavor of pursuing a position of 
a professor of information systems and researcher satisfied the national importance criteria outlined in 
Dhanasar. The Director therefore asked the Petitioner to provide additional information, including a 
detailed description of his proposed endeavor, and documentation to establish the endeavor's potential 
prospective impact, such as its national or global implications in the field, potential to employ U.S. 
workers and enhance societal welfare, or its potential impact with respect to a matter that a government 
entity has described as having national importance or which was the subject of national initiatives. 
In response, the Petitioner repeated that his "proposed endeavor involves developing and applying 
innovative business model approaches utilizing emerging technologies in order to produce business 
model tools for wealth creation." He added that his plan was "to continue to design and develop new 
breeds of business models based on emerging technologies such as blockchains, artificial intelligence, 
Internet of Things (IoT), and big data," and that "[t]hese comprehensive research plans provide further 
detail on the investigations [he] intends to pursue in the coming years and confirm that his proposed 
endeavor is a direct continuation of his previous achievements as a researcher." The Petitioner also 
submitted evidence of a job offer he had received from I 5 for the position of Director of 
New Business Development, stating, in part, that the Petitioner's "experience and knowledge in 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 Described in the letter as "a world-renowned accelerator and venture capital firm and an experienced investor with over 
35 years of experience." 
5 Described in the job offer as "an industry-focused professional network for equipment manufacturers, industrial 
customers, and service providers," with a digital platform that "serves diverse industry sectors like oil and gas, power and 
energy, construction, mining, medicine, and agriculture, just to name a few." 
3 
developing innovative business model approaches using emerging technologies make [him] a perfect 
fit for this position," and that he "can help I I find the best business model and innovative 
solutions necessary to achieve [their] growth targets." 
In his RFE response, the Petitioner contended that the offer of employment froml Ievinces 
that his knowledge and skills are of great interest to private companies that wish to capitalize on his 
contributions to the financial technologies field, while his acceptance to the accelerator program at 
_____ "illustrates the value of his ongoing research" and "allows him to continue pursuing 
his future research plans and thereby facilitates his ongoing work in the field of financial 
technologies." He indicated that the area of his research is vital to the nation because of its implications 
for allowing companies in a multitude of sectors, including the energy sector, to update their business 
models to reflect the growing interest in implementing digital tools and clean energy technologies, 
which will enable them to better meet consumer demands and the changing energy goals of the United 
States. He also pointed out that "financial technologies" was listed as a "critical and emerging 
technology" in the CET report and has been recognized as having the potential to fulfill the 2021 
Interim National Security Strategic Guidance objectives of protecting the security of the American 
people, expanding economic prosperity and opportunity, and realizing and defending democratic 
values. The Petitioner indicated that for these reasons "the benefits of his work extend well beyond 
the confines of his employer to the United States and the world more broadly," and "it is readily 
apparent that [his] proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance." 
The Director determined that although the Petitioner was not required to have a job offer from a 
specific employer, he had not shown that his proposed endeavor, which appeared to be working "as 
an IT specialist for various companies," was nationally important. In making this determination, the 
Director acknowledged evidence pointing to the importance of information systems to U.S. companies 
and the U.S. economy in general but concluded that the Petitioner did not show his work would 
sufficiently extend beyond his prospective employers and clients to impact the field or industry more 
broadly, or that it met any of the other factors considered in evaluating a proposed endeavor's national 
importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar 's analytical framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner references his RFE response and states that rather than acknowledging that 
the evidence supported his eligibility for the national interest waiver with a likelihood greater than 
50%, the Director erred by employing a standard of proof that well exceeds the proper preponderance 
of the evidence standard. He avers that the Director's conflation of his proposed employment and his 
proposed endeavor, along with the dismissal of the "detailed and comprehensive explanation" of his 
endeavor indicates that the evidence was not sufficiently reviewed. The Petitioner states, citing to 
Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1223 (E.D. Mi. 1994) that failure to consider all relevant evidence 
submitted has been found to be an abuse of discretion. He further states that the Director also failed 
to comply with the standards set by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Visinscaia 
v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126 (D.D.D.C. 2013)6 "by dismissing the evidence submitted and refusing to 
offer feedback on its merits or lack thereof." Specifically, he contends that the Director did not 
consider "Statistica and Our World in Data" that provided contextual statistics on internet users and 
6Tn that case, the district court upheld a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met the extraordinary ability criterion under 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), stating that where the agency did give some weight to the evidence - just not 
the weight the petitioner would prefer - the court could not conclude that the agency's decision was arbitrary. See 
Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35. 
4 
global internet usage worth," he initially submitted to emphasize the critical need for his expertise in 
financial technologies. 
As an initial matter, while the Petitioner asserts that he provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate 
eligibility for a national interest waiver, he does not explain or identify any specific instance in which 
the Director applied a standard of proof other than the preponderance of evidence in denying his 
petition. Furthermore, like the Board of Immigration Appeals we are not bound by the published 
decisions of U.S. district courts even in matters arising within the same district. See Matter ofK-S-, 
20 I&N Dec. 715, 719 (BIA 1993). Thus, while we may consider the reasoning underlying a district 
judge's decision when it is properly before us, we are not required to follow it as a matter oflaw. We 
also note that there is nothing in the Buletini decision to suggest that USCIS abuses its discretion if it 
does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. Rather, so long as USCIS gives 
a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to 
specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece 
of evidence the petitioner presented. Ren v. USCIS, 60 F.4th 89, 97 (4th Cir. 2023); see also 
Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1142-43 (5th Cir. 1984) (stating that "[the Board oflmmigration 
Appeals] has no duty to write an exegesis on every contention"). 
In addition, the record does not sufficiently support the Petitioner's claim that the Director did not 
consider all relevant evidence. To the contrary - the RFE indicates that the Director reviewed the 
initially provided documentation and found it insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor met the national importance requirement. The Director also advised the Petitioner that 
pursuant to Dhanasar, in determining national importance the relevant question is not the importance 
of the field or industry, or profession in which the individual will work, but the specific endeavor that 
the individual proposes to undertake. We cannot therefore conclude that the Director did not consider 
all relevant evidence or applied an incorrect standard of proof in evaluating the Petitioner's eligibility 
for a national interest waiver and ultimately denying his petition. 
Furthermore, while we agree that the Director misconstrued the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as 
performing the work of an IT specialist for various companies, we conclude that the evidence 
considered individually and in the aggregate is insufficient to show that the Petitioner is "more likely 
than not" eligible for a national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner reiterates on appeal that he intends to continue his investigation to discover new breeds 
of business models based on emerging technologies. He indicates that his results will be in the form 
of new technology driven-business models, which will be directly beneficial to the United States. The 
Petitioner states that one of the consequences of adopting innovative applications of emerging 
technologies is creating new jobs in the United States, thus creating the potential to transform 
industries, create new products and services, and drive economic growth. He asserts that the evidence 
initially submitted demonstrated that his proposed endeavor is nationally important because of the 
increasing demand for mobile services like online banking, and that the investigative and diagnostic 
models that accurately determine digital readiness and the growing adoption of online financial 
services he developed showed how his work in the field is significant for meeting customer needs as 
digital financial tools become increasingly common across the United States. The Petitioner again 
references the letters from I as evidence that there is a demand for his expertise 
in the United States. He indicates that the results of his "research endeavors will be promoted at the 
5 
national level through his outcomes and new devised business logics, and start-up companies," and 
that his "innovative research supports the creation of job opportunities for engineering, cutting-edge 
technologists, and business school graduates. In support, he points to the previously submitted World 
Economic Forum report estimating that "there will be 133 million new jobs created by 2022 due to 
the adoption of emerging technologies. He also refers to the previously provided 2021 McKinsey 
Global Survey, indicating that in the post-pandemic era companies investing in improving their 
technology capabilities and resources have better outcomes than those that are not. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's achievements and expertise in his field, as well as his extensive prior 
research, and the importance, expansion, and growing positive impact of technology within the 
commercial sphere. However, in evaluating whether an endeavor is of national importance, we focus 
on the "specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake," and evidence of its "potential 
prospective impact." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Accordingly, "we look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor and consider whether "[aa ]n undertaking may have national 
importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field" 
or whether it "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
Although the Petitioner contends that he has provided a "detailed and comprehensive explanation" of 
his proposed endeavor, the description of the work he intends to do in the United States is ambiguous 
and does not include discussion of his specific goals. For example, the Petitioner does not expound 
on how his intent "to continue his investigation to discover new breeds of business models based on 
emerging technologies" will "form new technology driven-business models," or what his work will 
actually entail. Nor does he explain how his research may be implemented to potentially create new 
jobs, products, and service, thus driving economic growth or advancing important government 
objectives. Furthermore, while the Petitioner initially indicated that he would seek a professorship, 
preferably at the __________ to conduct and promote his research at the national 
level, he does not claim or provide evidence that the or any other 
institution of higher learning in the United States has offered him a faculty position or that he has 
otherwise secured research grants to continue his work in the financial technologies field. Adding to 
the ambiguity is the Petitioner's statement in response to the RFE that his acceptance into the 
accelerator program, in which they offered him office space, internet, software, and hardware, ... 
enables him to complete his innovative business model research," and "his employment with I I 
suppsupports his advancement of the proposed endeavor." Lastly, the specific area of the Petitioner's 
research is not clear, as at times he indicates that he will focus on "financial technologies" because of 
the increasing demand for mobile services like online banking, and at times suggests that his research 
will generally involve "emerging technologies," which will allow companies in a multitude of sectors, 
including the energy sector, to update their business models and better meet consumer demands and 
the changing energy goals of the United States. 
We cannot evaluate the prospective impact of a proposed endeavor without, for example, information 
about how it will be funded, where it will be undertaken, and the individual's definitive endeavor­
related work goals. The Petitioner's reiteration on appeal that he generally intends to continue his 
investigation to discover new breeds of business models based on emerging technologies, and that his 
results will be in the form of new technology driven-business models beneficial to the United States, 
does not provide any further details about the practical aspects and objectives of his work and does 
6 
not therefore resolve the ambiguity concerning his proposed endeavor. Absent specific, consistent 
information about the Petitioner's undertaking corroborated by evidence, the record remains 
insufficient to establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance. 
Lastly, the Petitioner stresses that financial technologies is one of critical and emerging technology 
areas of particular importance to the national security of the United States, and that his research 
therefore aligns with the important government's goals. We recognize the importance of the science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields and "the essential role of persons with 
advanced STEM degrees in fostering this progress, especially in focused critical and emerging 
technologies or other STEM areas important to U.S. competitiveness or national security. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. We also 
acknowledge that "[m]any proposed endeavors that aim to advance STEM technologies and research, 
whether in academic or industry settings, . . . have sufficiently broad potential implications to 
demonstrate national importance." See generally id. Nonetheless, with respect to the first prong, as 
in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and 
national importance. See generally id. 
Here, as discussed, the Petitioner has not clearly articulated his specific proposed endeavor and has 
not provided sufficient documentation to show that its prospective potential impact in a STEM field 
would reach the level of national importance. The Petitioner's general unsupported assertions that his 
research "to discover new breeds of business models based on emerging technologies" has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers, as well as substantial positive social and economic impacts are not 
sufficient to satisfy his burden of proof in these proceedings. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 376. We conclude, therefore, that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of 
his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
Because the Petitioner is ineligible for the national interest waiver on this basis alone, we need not 
address at this time whether his endeavor meets the "substantial merit" requirement of the Dhanasar' s 
first prong, and also decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding 
his eligibility under the second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
(stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are 
unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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 
The 
Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to show that he satisfies the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. Consequently, he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits 
a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7