dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Risk Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 21, 2024 In Re: 34967512 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a risk manager, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the best 
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 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 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 matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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 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. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner intends to start an Artificial Intelligence (AI) fraud detection company, ___
I I which will develop and implement AI-based fraud detection systems for fintech companies. 
The Petitioner plans to create algorithms to analyze large volumes of financial data, identify patterns 
and trends, and detect potentially fraudulent activity. The Petitioner claims her work will provide 
fintech companies with a tool to mitigate fraud risks, comply with regulations, enhance customer 
confidence, and contribute to the national interest in financial security and innovation. 
In the denial decision, the Director found the Petitioner had submitted sufficient evidence to qualify 
as a professional holding an advanced degree and that the proposed endeavor is of substantial merit 
and national importance. However, the Director also determined the Petitioner is not eligible for a 
national interest waiver because she did not establish she is well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor and that, on balance, waiving the job offer would benefit the United States. 
A. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong of the Dhanasar framework examines whether the petitioner is well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor and shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To 
determine whether they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors 
including, but not limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The Director determined, after consideration of the relevant factors, the submitted evidence did not 
establish the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. We concur with that 
determination. The Director discussed evidence submitted by the Petitioner in support of this prong 
including: a business plan, letters of support, a resume, certificates of training, and letters of interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts she has demonstrated that she is well-positioned to advance her 
endeavor. The Petitioner specifies that her education, skills, knowledge, and record of success were 
demonstrated by her academic degrees and letters of support. The Petitioner also claims that she meets 
the additional well-positioned factors based on her business plan, letters of interest in her endeavor, 
course completion certificates, and her professional license. 
The Petitioner previously submitted a business plan for starting _______ as an 
entrepreneur. The plan asserts the Petitioner, who would serve as owner, CEO, and founder of
I Iis well-positioned to advance her endeavor due to her educational and 
professional backgrounds. Though the business plan indicates the Petitioner will work with an AI 
2 
specialist to develop AI-based fraud detection systems, both the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
statement and "Model or Plan for Future Activities" claim the Petitioner will apply her "knowledge 
and experience to create algorithms that can analyze large volumes of financial data, identify patterns 
and trends, and detect potentially fraudulent activity at an early stage." The record contains letters 
for the Petitioner from previous employers verifying she has years of experience in the field of risk 
management. The letters specify the Petitioner's duties, including, in part: execution of management 
activities, development and implementation of ERM methodology, ensuring compliance, filing claims, 
negotiation, hedging market debt, and administration of letters of credit. However, while the letters 
establish the Petitioner's extensive experience in working for companies in the field of risk 
management, they do not establish that she has previously been an entrepreneur, owner, CEO, or 
founder in this field or that she has experience in the professed main objective of I I 
I I creating algorithms for AI-based fraud detection. Similarly, the Petitioner's bachelor's 
degree in financial administration, master's degree in business administration, professional license, 
and acquired course certificates do not demonstrate the Petitioner has experience as either an 
entrepreneur or algorithm-creator. We note the record includes two "independent advisory letters" 
from CEOs of companies, both of whom are not acquainted with the Petitioner. The Petitioner claims 
these letters demonstrate her record of success in the field of endeavor from individuals whom she 
neither knows nor has worked alongside. These letters assert the Petitioner's ability to execute her 
endeavor in the United States and even attest to "her proven track record in developing sophisticated 
algorithms that significantly improve the accuracy and efficiency of fraud detection mechanisms." 
However, as the authors of these letters have not met the Petitioner, the letters acknowledge their 
contents are based only on the examination of the Petitioner's "academic credential, professional 
experiences, and significant achievements." The letters do not specify the documents upon which they 
relied in forming their conclusions; as discussed, the documents submitted by the Petitioner in support 
of this petition and her specified endeavor do not demonstrate her experience in entrepreneurship or 
creating algorithms. Overall, the record does not establish the Petitioner's past experience renders her 
well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. 
We acknowledge the three letters of interest in the record. Two of the letters are from companies that 
express interest in working with the Petitioner as a risk management consultant based on her prior 
accomplishments and acquired expertise in regulatory compliance, third party risk management, and 
financial risk management. It is noted these companies express interest in working with the Petitioner 
as a consultant explicitly based on her previous expertise; the companies do not indicate their interest 
in the Petitioner's specified proposed endeavor as the CEO, owner, and founder of a company for 
which she would develop algorithms for AI-based fraud detection. And, as discussed above, the 
Petitioner's evidence does not establish her past expertise and experience in this endeavor. The last 
letter of interest appears to be from a company interested in offering its own services to the Petitioner, 
as testers of AI applications, rather than using the services of I 
The Petitioner contends the Director erred in analyzing whether the Petitioner's work influenced her 
field of endeavor or whether she possesses a leading, critical, or indispensable role in her proposed 
endeavor as neither is required to demonstrate she is well positioned. The Petitioner also asserts the 
Director did not provide a thorough assessment of the evidence of record, as her independent advisory 
letters of support were not acknowledged in the analysis. However, the Director explicitly 
acknowledges the two independent letters of support submitted by the Petitioner in response to the 
request for evidence. We agree that in satisfaction of this prong, the Petitioner is not required to 
3 
demonstrate the influence of her work in the field of her endeavor or that she possessed a leading, 
critical, or indispensable role. However, for the aforementioned reasons, we concur with the Director 
that the Petitioner has not demonstrated she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's business plan for _______ and verification of her 
education and work experience discussed above. But while the Petitioner has demonstrated her 
abilities in risk management, she has not sufficiently demonstrated skills and successes in the area of 
her proposed endeavor, entrepreneurship and algorithm creation. She has also not sufficiently shown 
her progress toward the proposed endeavor and, as discussed, the level of interest in the specified 
endeavor. As such, the Petitioner has not established she is well positioned to advance her proposed 
endeavor to satisfy the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
B. Additional Dhanasar prongs 
As our finding on this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach andreserve 
the Petitioner's arguments relating to the Director's adverse determination of her eligibility under third 
prong of the Dhanasar 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 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). 
ITT. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4