Finance: compliance and investment advisory
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the proposed endeavor's national importance was not shown, while withdrawing the SCOPS finding on substantial merit.
Summarized by AI. Summaries on this site are written by AI and can contain errors. Always read the full decision on uscis.gov before relying on anything here. If a summary differs from the official decision, the official decision controls.
Summary
A U.S. petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver for a beneficiary who planned to run a compliance and investment advisory firm. SCOPS had rejected both her advanced degree claim and all three Dhanasar prongs. On appeal the AAO found that substantial merit was supported, yet it agreed that the record did not show national importance, because the business projections were uncorroborated and not shown to be significant and the claimed broader benefits were too general. It dismissed the appeal and left the advanced degree question and the remaining prongs undecided.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| Prong 1: Substantial merit and national importance | Not met | the Petitioner has not demonstrated the proposed endeavor's national importance |
| Prong 2: Well positioned to advance the endeavor | Not reached | classification, as well as eligibility under the remaining two Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. |
| Prong 3: Balance favors waiving the job offer | Not reached | classification, as well as eligibility under the remaining two Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. |
Why the AAO decided this way
- The AAO concluded the record supports the endeavor's substantial merit and withdrew the contrary SCOPS determination, but agreed that national importance was not demonstrated.
- The career plan's revenue, tax, and job projections were not explained or corroborated, and even if accurate they were not shown to reach the level of substantial positive economic effects.
- Claims that seminars and media outreach would benefit the wider investment community were not shown to extend beyond the people directly reached.
- Arguments about the general importance of the economy were too attenuated, and the support letters addressed the beneficiary's skills rather than the specific endeavor.
- The AAO reserved whether the beneficiary qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification, which SCOPS had found she did not.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015)
- Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016)
- Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85 (5th Cir. 2023)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976)
Read the full decision on uscis.gov ↗
Please describe the error only. Do not send personal or case information. Anything you send will not be treated as confidential, and an error report does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Report an error in this summary