dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Fintech

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 14, 2024 In Re: 31124994 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification , as well as a national interest waiver 
of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification . 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 a waiver of the required 
job offer and thus of the labor certification, would not be 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 a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&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. 53 7, 537 n .2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of 
discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• The proposed endeavor bas both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. The sole issue before us is whether the record establishes 
that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. 
The Director concluded in the denial that the Petitioner is well positioned to pursue his endeavor under 
Dhanasar 's second prong, but also determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy the first and third 
prongs of the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons discussed below, we withdraw the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner has established his eligibility under Dhanasar 's second prong. Based 
on our de novo review of the record, we conclude the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the 
substantial merit and the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong and that he 
is well-positioned to advance it under the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. While 
we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner is an experienced financial information technology (Fintech) 
professional with many years of employment experience in technical, commercial, and management 
roles. He has been involved in projects spanning several industries, including initiatives within the 
realm of digital financial services and cross-border remittances. In statements submitted with the 
initial filing in May 2023, the Petitioner described his intended employment as a Fintech services 
executive in the United States as follows: 
As a professional with expertise in digital financial services and cross-border 
remittances, I could contribute to the growth and development of the Fintech market in 
the U.S. [by] develop[ing] new and innovative solutions that meet the needs of 
consumers and businesses alike. By working with other industry professionals, 
regulators, and investors, I could help contribute to shape the future of the Fintech 
market in the U.S., driving innovation, efficiency, and growth in this rapidly evolving 
industry. 
He averred that his work would benefit the United States by "providing information and platforms to 
help mitigate or minimize financial terrorism and money laundering, and guide transparent approach 
to reporting, filing and supervising financial transactions in the United States and other financial 
corridors, particularly Africa." 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), in which he was asked to provide a more detailed 
discussion of his specific proposed endeavor supported by documentary evidence, the Petitioner 
submitted additional narrative about his endeavor, as follows: 
As a [Fintech] service executive, with expertise in payment systems, instant payments, 
cross-border payments & remittances, and technology policy formation, I propose to 
spearhead/collaborate with others in the industry to provide transformative 
initiatives/endeavors focused on: 
2 
• Proposing and contributing new ways in which the U.S. can participate in 
international/cross-border payment systems and remittances through the infusion 
of innovative financial technology solutions for migrant and non-migrant 
communities, e.g., Direct2Bank account transfers. 
• Financial inclusivity through contribution to the instant payment systems in the 
U.S. and expansion of financial service reach to the underserved or unbanked areas 
of the country through technology. 
My endeavor aims to tackle some of the existing challenges in local and international 
financial transactions, enhance security (by fostering and consolidating the industry 
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter Terrorism Financing (CTF) policies), 
promote efficiency and inclusivity, and contribute to the establishment of the U.S. as a 
global leader in fintech-driven financial solutions. 
When 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 Dhanasar, 26 I&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. 
In the initial filing and the RFE response, the Petitioner presented a high-level listing of diverse areas 
of national concern to the United States, ( e.g., improving payment and remittance systems for migrant 
and non-migrant communities, expanding access to financial services to underserved and unbanked 
areas of the country, enhancing financial security to address and promote policies that support anti­
money laundering and counter terrorism initiatives, and to further establish the U.S. as a global leader 
in fintech-driven financial solutions.) He also provided industry articles and reports about the Fintech 
industry, the future of digitized financial payments, and the importance of the work of Fintech 
professionals to the financial, information technology, and business sectors. However, without more, 
the Petitioner's broad statements about the various issues of concern that he might address and general 
information about the Fintech industry offer little insight into the specific endeavor that he intends to 
pursue in the United States. 
The recommendation letters from current and former colleagues provided to the Director outline the 
Petitioner's past work accomplishments and vaguely assert his services would be beneficial to the 
United States. For instance, I I discusses the Petitioner's prior achievements and work 
experience in his letter, and notes "[i]f given the opportunity to operate within the [t]echnology space 
in the U.S., I have no doubt that his wealth of experience at [] will come quickly handy." Similarly, 
highlights some of the Petitioner's past successes in his letter but does not discuss 
any aspect of his proposed endeavor in the U.S., other than to opine "I am confident that [the 
Petitioner's] skills and expertise will be of great benefit to the U.S., and I strongly recommend him for 
a national interest waiver." While these and other letter writers appear to hold the Petitioner in high 
regard, the submitted letters do not substantiate the nature of the specific endeavor that the Petitioner 
intends to engage in or explain the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed work 
under the Dhanasar 's first prong. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates his past achievements and experiences in the Fintech industry and 
acknowledges that the Director asked him in the RFE to provide "further detail as his proposed 
endeavor" to establish his eligibility for the national interest waver. But he did not provide a detailed 
description explaining how he will be prospectively engaged in the provision of Fintech-related services 
in the United States, supported by documentary evidence as requested by the Director in the RFE. The 
Director denied the petition, in part, because the record did not establish the substantial merit and 
national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong. "Failure to submit 
requested evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the 
[petition]." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
On appeal, the Petitioner notes that he provided "additional evidence of the proposed endeavor, 
described as the utilization of his skills and experience as a successful financial technology 
professional," in the RFE response and offers the same or similar general assertions previously 
presented to the Director about his proposed endeavor. He vaguely insists, for instance: 
Growth within the United States Fintech market would be enhanced through efforts made 
by [the Petitioner] within financial corridors, particularly Africa, to provide financial 
technology services to underserved individuals and businesses. Successful, effective, and 
safe expansion of United States Fintech into the rapidly developing [g]lobal [ s ]ector, as 
well as innovation and improvement in the [ d]omestic [ s ]ector, were included in the 
proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner further avers on appeal that his "services will involve collaboration with other Fintech 
companies and professionals,[], United States regulatory agencies, [c]ongressional [c]ommittees with 
Fintech oversight, and business investors," However, his ambiguously stated intentions regarding the 
specific services he prospectively intends to provide in the United States falls short in adequately 
explaining how he will pursue his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner must resolve this ambiguity in 
the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
We conclude that without more information about his specific proposed endeavor and how he will 
apply his knowledge and experience in the United States, the Petitioner has not established his 
proposed endeavor sufficient for us to determine that his work in the United States will have substantial 
merit and national importance. In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest 
waiver, we must rely on the specific proposed endeavor to determine whether it has both substantial 
merit and national importance under the Dhanasar 's first prong. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove 
by a preponderance of evidence that it is qualified for the benefit sought. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence 
alone but by its quality. Id. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
Additionally, to determine whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must also 
rely on the specific proposed endeavor to determine whether they are well positioned to advance it 
under the Dhanasar 's second prong. Dhanasar at 889-90. Because the Petitioner has not provided 
sufficient information regarding his proposed endeavor, he has not met his burden to demonstrate 
through the preponderance of evidence that he meets the second prong. Chawathe, supra. For the 
4 
sake of brevity, we will not discuss other deficiencies in the record regarding the Petitioner's eligibility 
under Dhanasar 's second prong. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter 
of discretion. Further analysis of his eligibility under the third Dhanasar prong, therefore, would serve 
no meaningful purpose. 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 ofL-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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5