dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: International Financial Markets

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 5, 2024 In Re: 29846300 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur and a professional in the field of international financial markets, 1 seeks 
second preference immigrant classification (EB-2) 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 
EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2)(2022) . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established 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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3 (2022). 
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 l&N Dec. 537, 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish 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 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest 
1 According to the November 2022 statement from counsel, the Petitioner is "an accomplished professional with 
widespread expertise in the specialized field of international financial market, particularly in the foreign exchange sector." 
waiver pet1t10ns. Matter ofDhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion, 2 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 the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-91. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether he has established that 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 that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit but does not satisfy the national importance element of Matter of Dhanasar's first 
prong. If the Petitioner does not meet the first prong, the evidence is dispositive in finding the 
Petitioner ineligible for the national interest waiver, and we need not address the second and third 
prongs. 
As explained in the Director's decision, the first prong - substantial merit and national importance -
focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We noted in Matter ofDhanasar 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. We also 
stated 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. 
According to the November 2022 statement from counsel, the Petitioner's resume, a business plan, 
and other evidence in the record, the Petitioner was a co-founder o ____________ 3 
a Brazilian business in which he has a 4% ownership interest. Since 2021, he has been the chief 
economist for a limited liability company in Florida which is owned by 
the Brazilian business. The Petitioner intends to continue this position in the U.S., noting that he "will 
provide executive leadership and operational expertise to advance [the Florida business's] financial 
technology to SME [ small and medium enterprise] foreign exchange brokerages and money services 
businesses across multiple states in the United States." On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that the 
2 See Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F. 3d 868, 870-76 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national 
interest waiver to be discretionary in nature); see also 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). 
3 The Petitioner's resume indicates that he worked for the Brazilian business from 2016 through 2021, as its head of 
treasury and chief economist. 
2 
Florida business "is a digital currency exchange broker," and that its "signature product, Simple, is the 
leading B2B digital currency exchange platform that offers individual foreign exchange brokers/agents 
a complete end-to-end solution to support their day-to-day operations from the sale of paper money to 
international remittances over a secure network." 
The record includes an October 2022 letter from the co-founder and 
director of the Brazilian business. He explained that the Florida business is a "regional office" of the 
Brazilian business, and that the Petitioner has been the Florida business's chief economist. Mr.
I I indicated that the Petitioner has "been responsible for leading and overseeing [ the Brazilian] 
company's expansion in the United States" and "is tasked with establishing the company's commercial 
presence in the United States." I Idetailed the Petitioner's work as the chief economist, 
stating that he has "identified five (5) potential partners in the United States"; has overseen "the 
execution of a Share Purchase Agreement to acquire 40%" of a Florida-based business that conducts 
foreign exchange transactions; and has been "leading the pre-acquisition due diligence process" of a 
New Jersey-based corporation with money exchange licenses to conduct business in New Jersey, 
Georgia, Maryland and Massachusetts. According to the business plan, the Brazilian business has also 
formed a Texas company "to operate in the business of consulting and payments." I I 
provided in his letter that the Petitioner's contributions "are critical to [the Brazilian business and its 
Florida office's] long-term success." 
The record includes other letters from individuals who have worked with the Petitioner. These letters 
discuss the Petitioner's professional experience and state that he has contributed to the success of both 
the Brazilian business and its Florida operation. 
The Director reviewed the evidence on record and concluded that the Petitioner failed to show his 
"proposed endeavor has implications beyond his current employer ( or prospective employer or self­
owned company), their business partners, alliances, and/or clients/customers and [his] prospective co­
workers or workplace at a level sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of his endeavor." In 
other words, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor 
has national importance, such that it may have "national or even global implications within a particular 
field," "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or "has other substantial positive economic 
effects" in the United States. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor "has national importance" because "it has 
the potential to have a major impact on the field of international financial markets, particularly the 
foreign exchange sector in the United States." He claims that his current employer "offer[s] financial 
technology to small- and medium sized money services businesses," and that as its chief economist, 
he will "lead the development and integration of technology solutions that are aimed at optimizing the 
day-to-day operations of these businesses ... , ensuring their competitiveness in the broader financial 
services market." He also alleges that his proposed endeavor will have a positive impact in the U.S. 
economy, including preserving and creating jobs, because his employer has partnered with U.S.-based 
businesses that are "located in SBA [Small Business Administration]-designated HUBZone areas." 4 
4 The Small Business Administration (SBA) website provides: "The HUBZone program fuels small business growth in 
historically underutilized business zones with a goal of awarding at least 3% of federal contract dollars to HUBZone-
3 
The Petitioner offers additional evidence on appeal, including a 2019 report entitled "Updated 
Employment Multipliers for the U.S. Economy," and materials relating to his employer. 
The record is insufficient to satisfy the first prong under Matter of Dhanasar. Specifically, the 
Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor has national importance. See id., 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. The Petitioner offers evidence showing that his employer has business partners and associates 
that are located in different U.S. States. But as Matter ofDhanasar explains, the focus of this prong 
is the national importance of the proposed endeavor, not its geographic area. See id., 26 I&N Dec. at 
889-90. While we acknowledge that the Petitioner and his employer's customers, clients or business 
partners have benefitted from his work as the chief economist, including his contributions to the 
platform Simple, he has not offered sufficient evidence demonstrating that the benefit to individual 
businesses rises to the level of national importance or that his proposed endeavor will likely impact 
the field of international financial markets more broadly. For example, although some businesses in 
the U.S. have used or are intending to use Simple, the record is insufficient to show that the technology 
has impacted the field nationally or that its potential prospective impact has national or global 
implications within the field. 
Additionally, the Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence showing that his proposed endeavor 
has "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area." See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. On 
appeal, the Petitioner references the SBA HUBZone program, but has not shown that the program 
confirms the national impact of his proposed endeavor. The SBA program aims to award a certain 
percentage of federal contract dollars to HUB Zone-certified companies. 5 The record does not indicate 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor involves HUB Zone-certified companies or has any association 
to federal contracts. To the extent that he is arguing his proposed endeavor has the potential to 
positively impact historically underutilized business areas, in part, by preserving or creating jobs, the 
record does not include sufficient evidence showing any projected U.S. economic impact or job 
creation directly attributable to his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance or will 
likely impact the field of international financial markets. 
We have reviewed the evidence in the record, including reports and articles on small and medium 
enterprises in the United States and international financial markets. We acknowledge that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor involves providing financial technology to small and medium sized 
money services businesses in the United States and has substantial merit. However, merely working 
in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 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." 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In this case, for the reasons we have discussed, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated the requisite national importance. 
certified companies each year." The SBA website further explains that "[j]oining the HUBZone program makes [a] 
business eligible to compete for the program's set-aside contracts" and that "HUBZone-certified businesses also get a 10% 
price evaluation preference in full and open contract competitions." https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting­
assistance-programs/hubzone-program, accessed on Mar. 5, 2024, a copy of the online material has been incorporated into 
the record of proceedings. 
5 See supra note 4. 
4 
Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of the Matter of Dhanasar 
precedent decision and he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the 
identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Matter ofDhanasar framework. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "courts and agencies are not required to 
make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 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 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Matter ofDhanasar analytical framework, 
we find that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5