dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: International Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 26, 2024 In Re: 33348649 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an international financial specialist, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that though the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be 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 petitioner must establish 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. If a 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 of Dhanasar, 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; 
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 is 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 concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the 
Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. See 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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. 
According to the Petitioner's professional plan provided with the initial filing, he intends to continue 
working as an international financial specialist, to "apply [his] knowledge helping to stimulate the 
financial sector specifically through negotiations regarding the exchange rates of the market, 
attributing profitably to the company." He will "provide customized solutions which enable clients to 
meet their financial goals," manage the client's portfolio, use "technology to monitor in real time the 
market rate, search for reliable graphics on the exchange market to analyze the news," and contact 
customers "to let them know which market is more attractive for closing." The Petitioner indicates 
his "professional performance will exponentially impact the financial sector of the United States" by 
enhancing profitability of U.S. companies, increase American companies' customer portfolio, enable 
business growth, and improve the qualifications of America's international financial specialists. In 
support of his eligibility, the Petitioner submitted a resume, an expert opinion letter, recommendation 
letters, and an article that referenced the Petitioner and his work as a foreign exchange operational 
consultant. 
The Director determined, in part, that the Petitioner's initial filing did not demonstrate the proposed 
endeavor's national importance and issued a request for evidence (RFE). In response, the Petitioner 
submitted additional documentation, to include an updated resume and professional plan, a new 
reference letter, information related to his employment and income, and correspondence from several 
individuals discussing possible job offers. The Petitioner indicated that he intends to perform as an 
international financial specialist and provide his "specialized services in Foreign Exchange Operations 
and Fraud Prevention to impact the financial sector through innovation in the United States." Through 
his "undertakings [the Petitioner] will perform beyond the work of ordinary International Financial 
Specialists, as [his] endeavor will innovate the financial sector through the implementation of powerful 
tools and techniques to manage currency risk, increase profitability, prevent financial losses due to 
fraudulent activities," and "drive sales and revenue growth." The Petitioner's "unique combination of 
[his] academic, technical, and professional experience will enable the effective implementation of 
these methodologies and lead to the creation and development of new technologies that will result in 
immeasurable contributions and impacts to the U.S. financial sector." 
2 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that though his proposed endeavor as an international 
financial specialist had substantial merit, the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate 
that the prospective impact of his endeavor rises to the level of national importance. The Director 
found that the evidence did not demonstrate the benefit of the Petitioner's endeavor would extend 
beyond potential clients, employers or business partners at a level sufficient to demonstrate national 
importance. The Petitioner did not show that his proposed endeavor would result in significant job 
growth or "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. The 
Director acknowledged the recommendation letters and determined that the record did not contain 
independent and objective evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's work has potential implications 
that are of national importance to the United States. The Director noted the Petitioner's claim that his 
proposed endeavor meets the national importance prong due in part to the financial analyst demand 
and shortage in the United States; however, a shortage in a particular field does not render the proposed 
endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director made numerous erroneous conclusions of law and 
fact. He asserts that the RFE response included a detailed explanation of how he has made and 
continues to make contributions of significant impact. The Petitioner further contends the record 
demonstrates his proposed endeavor meets the national importance element of the first prong of 
Dhanasar because his well-rounded specialized services in foreign exchange operations and fraud 
prevention will benefit businesses with effective currency risk management, enhanced security 
measures, innovative solutions, expert advice, and networking opportunities. 
Upon review, the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence 
to evaluate whether he had demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he meets the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. 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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. Generally, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of a 
petitioner's work. We noted in Dhanasar that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed 
endeavor and 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. Although the Petitioner discusses 
the value and importance of international financial services, foreign exchange operations, and fraud 
prevention and their impact on the U.S. economy, Dhanasar requires us to focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," not the importance of the field, industry, or 
profession. Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner provided recommendation letters and documents relating to his education, professional 
experience, and accomplishments. However, the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to 
the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to 
the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor he proposes to 
undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. The record in its totality does not 
show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's specific services stand to sufficiently 
extend beyond his prospective employers or clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
3 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. Further 
analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would 
serve no meaningful purpose. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies 
are not required to make 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 alternate issues on appeal 
where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4