The Petitioner, a compliance manager, sought a national interest waiver based on an endeavor related to financial crime and money-laundering risk management in the banking sector.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we agreed that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor and reserved the Petitioner's remaining eligibility requirements under the Dhanasar framework.”

“the determination of national importance focuses on the specific endeavor a Petitioner proposes to undertake, rather than the specific area or field.”

“she similarly does not provide corroborating evidence of her claims that her specific endeavor would contribute to the local economy on a scale reflecting national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “do not state new facts and therefore do not constitute "new facts" for the purposes of a motion to reopen.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the submitted articles do not mention the Petitioner, her company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

This is the Petitioner's third combined motion to reopen and reconsider following an appeal dismissal and two prior motion dismissals, all turning on the same unresolved national-importance failure; the AAO reiterates that its review scope is limited to the immediately prior decision and rejects the Petitioner's recurring arguments about geographic scope, U.S.-worker employment, and small-business economic data as previously addressed and unsupported.

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
• Matter of Coelho

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
• The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
• The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
• The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
• The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod