dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19499548 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 19, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chief executive, seeks second preference immigrant classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, 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). After a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 
classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, grant 
a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national ' s proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying 
classification and that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit. Nevertheless, the Director denied 
the petition, concluding that the evidence did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national 
importance, that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor, or that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer would be in the national interest. Accordingly, the Director determined that the Petitioner 
had not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner reasserts his eligibility, arguing that the Director 
did not properly weigh the evidence and erred in the decision. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification (emphasis added), as either an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this 
classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing 
is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
{A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interest waiver .... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to 
architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
2 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pe1iinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). In announcing this new framework, we vacated 
our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 
215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant a national interest 
waiver as matter of discretion. See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th 
Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to bed iscretionary in 
nature). As a matter of discretion, the national interest waiver may be granted if the petitioner 
demonstrates: ( 1) that the foreign national' s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 
that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer 
and thus of a labor certification. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three 
prongs. 
11. ANALYSIS 
A Advanced Degree 
The Petitioner did not assert and the Director did not analyze the Petitioner's eligibility as an individual 
of exceptional ability. The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying 
classification as a professional holding an advanced degree. In order to show that a petitioner holds a 
qualifying advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied by "[a]n official academic record 
showing that the [individual] has a United States advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Alternatively, a petitioner may present "[a]n official academic record 
showing that the [individual] has a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree, 
and evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer(s) showing that the [individual] 
has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
The record contains evidence that the Petitioner attended a university in Spain and earned a four-year 
degree in information technology (IT) in 1990. In addition, he completed several foreign certificate 
programs, including those in integrated project management, management training, and management 
improvement. Each program's duration ranged from six to eight months. Although the Petitioner asserts 
that the foreign management improvement certificate program, which he attended from April to 
December 2008, resulted in the award of a master's degree in business administration, the record does 
not support this claim. The Petitioner did not submit transcripts to accompany his certificate in 
management improvement and it is not apparent from the record how a certificate program in 
management improvement could be considered a master's degree program. 
In support of the U.S. equivalency of his education, the Petitioner submitted an evaluation from 
I I, a professor at th~ College.___ __________ _. Because 
USCIS does not accept equivalency e~ of experience, we consider and analyze the academic 
3 
equ ivalencyportion of the evaluation only. We further acknowlege an advisory opinion of the Petitioner's 
eligibility under the national interest waiver framework, which the Petitioner also obtained from 
I I This advisory opinion does not not analyze the Petitioner's foreign education and therefore 
is not probative of its U.S. equivalency. 
In considering the academic portion ofthd l's evaulation, we observe that it largely contains 
temp lated language found in numerous evaluations provided by other evaluation service providers and 
submitted on behalf of other petitioners. The only information specific to the Petitioner's education 
appear to be the titles of his academic programs and the names of his universities. Although! I 
states that the courses completed and the number of credit hours earned indicate the equivalency of the 
Petitioner's education! I offers little explanation of the Petitioner's courses and credit hours 
and does not explain how they are the equivalent of a U.S. education. His generalized conclusions are 
insufficient to establish the U.S. equivalency of the Petitioner's education. Although I c I 
references the Petitioner's transcripts, the record contains only the Petitioner's transcripts for his four­
year IT degree. The Petitioner has not submitted transcripts for any of his certificate programs and we 
therefore question the basis upon whichl Id raws his conclusions. Additionally, we question 
I ~s knowledge of the Spanish academic system and how his qualifications as a professor in 
the United States enable him to credibly opine on the equivalencyof Spanish academic degrees. For 
these reasons, we conclude that this evaluation is of little probative value in this matter. 
We may, in our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's foreign education as an advisory opinion. 
Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we may discount or give less weight to 
that evaluation. Id. Here, the evaluator does not demonstrate specific knowledge of the Spanish 
education system, the Petitioner's specific university, or how his credit hours, grades, and the content of 
his courses translate to a U.S. education. Nor does the evaulator offer sufficient analysis or support for 
the conclusions contained in the evaluation. As such, we conclude that th is evaluation is insufficient to 
establish the academic equivalency of the Petitioner's foreign education. 
Even if we accepted that the Petitioner earned the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in IT, the 
evidence would still be insufficient to qualify the Petitioner as an advanced degree profressional in 
accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). The requlation requires that post-baccalaureate experience 
be documented in the form of letters from current or former employer(s) showing that the [individual] 
has at least five years of progr~erience in the specialty. The record contains a letter from the 
Petitioner's former employerL___Jwhich indicates that the Petitioner worked fo~ ~ from 
August 1, 1998 to September 4, 2015. The letterfurtherstatesthatthe Petitioner occupied the position 
of Deputy Executive Vice President, responsible for the energy, telecommunications, and media 
markets, and that in April 2010, the Petitioner transitioned to the role of Executive Vice President of 
international business. The letter does not discuss the Petitioner's work duties, responsibilities, or 
training and as such, it is difficult to conclude that the work was progressive in nature based upon the 
Petitioner's position titles alone. While it is clear that the Petitioner has more than five years of post­
baccalaureate experience, the record is insufficient to conclude that the experience was progressive in 
nature. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the evidence provided complies with the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
4 
As the record does not establish the U.S. equivalency of the Petitioner's foreign education, nor does it 
establish the progressive nature of the Petitioner's post-baccalaureate experience, we withdraw the 
Director's finding that the Petitioner has established that he qualifies as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. Instead, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met his burden in this 
regard. 
B. National Importance 
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification, the issue of 
the national interest waiver is moot. The waiver is available only to foreign workers who othetwise 
qualify for classification under section 203(b)(2){A) of the Act. While this shortcoming alone merits the 
dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal, we nevertheless examine the issue of whether he has established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. For the following reasons, we agree with the Director that 
the evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility in this regard. Although we do not discuss each 
piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
In the initial filing, the Petitioner stated on his Form 1-140 that as a chief executive, he will 
"[ d]etermine and formulate policies and provide overall direction of companies or public and private 
sector organizations." He described his proposed endeavor as advancing his career as a chief executive 
in the IT consulting industry where he will plan, direct, and coordinate the operations of companies 
and develop international business activities by promoting cross-border projects and transactions. The 
Petitioner further stated that he "intends to apply his intimate knowledge of IT and [profit and loss] 
analysis, business administration, consulting and the Defense and Traffic & Transport markets to 
directly help companies in the United States develop better strategies and practices, and improve their 
global market reach, which will consequently benefit this U.S economy." The Petitioner provided 
numerous assertions concerning the national importance of his proposed endeavor, including that it 
will enhance the business capabilities of U.S. companies doing business on a global scale; facilitate 
cross-border transactions; increase economic activity; generate jobs and tax revenue; as well as 
optimize company effectiveness, efficiency, and compliance with cross-border laws and industry 
regulations. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), notifying the Petitioner that he had not established, 
among other things, that the proposed endeavor has national importance. The Director specifically 
noted that the evidence suggested that the proposed endeavor would impact the Petitioner's 
prospective employers and customers but not the IT field or the nation as a whole. In response, the 
Petitioner added that he is currently working on expanding the operations of his Florida-based IT 
consulting comr:i~n l I He also asserted that he serves as the CEO ofl I I la data center with headquarters in Spain. As CEO of I I the Petitioner 
plans to expand data centers into the United States, particularly in the Florida region. He 
claimed that the expansion ofl I into the United States will enable him to improve U.S. business 
productivity and to maximize economic capacities, as well as to bring stability, growth, and 
productivity to all U.S. companies that employl ~s services. Regarding the broader impact of 
his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner explained that the endeavor would impact more than just 
I l's served companies, but also has the potential to reach the clients, employees, and affiliates of 
I l's globally located client companies. The Petitioner asserted that this would enhance the 
5 
business ecosystem because IT plays a central role in meeting national and international business 
demands. 
Although the Petitioner provided an RFE response, the Director ultimately determined that the 
evidence was insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor because the 
evidence did not convey that the Petitioner's proposed activities would have a broader impact. The 
Director acknowledged the Petitioner's claims of impact to the economy but determined that the 
claims were not supported by independent and objective evidence. We agree. 
In support of his arguments, the Petitioner submitted numerous industry articles and reports; however, 
as these articles do not discuss or address the proposed endeavor, they offer little to aid our analysis. 
In determining national importance, 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." See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. Although the fields of 
IT and business are important, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient or persuasive evidence of how 
his proposed endeavor is nationally important, as opposed to the fields in general. 
The Petitioner initially described his proposed endeavor as advancing his own career, which does not 
suggest that its impact would be nationally important. The Petitioner went on to explain that his 
proposed endeavor has national importance because of "the ripple effects it generates upon the U.S. 
business industry, which is experiencing a growing shortage of IT professionals, coupled with an 
intensive demand for tech-centered services." However, the "ripple effects" the proposed endeavor 
would generate are not well explained or documented in the record, nor has the Petitioner sufficiently 
connected the proposed endeavor's activities to any specific ripple effects. Although he claimed to 
have technological innovations that would directly improve the U.S. economy by enhancing 
productivity, operations, and revenue of businesses through the country, the Petitioner did not explain 
what his innovations are, how they are different from what is already available in the IT field, or how 
the benefits of these innovations would accrue to companies that do not directly recruit the Petitioner's 
services. Similarly, the Petitioner's arguments that the proposed endeavor has national importance 
due to the shortage of IT workers is not persuasive. Here, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient 
evidence to establish that his proposed endeavor would impact or significantly reduce the claimed 
national shortage. 
The Petitioner highlighted his past successes in order to suggest that his proposed endeavor will make 
a similar impact. He asserted that through the IT projects he led for major companies, he significantly 
contributed to the economy and that his "spearheaded IT initiatives" have been adapted into the 
national and global marketplace. However, he has not provided sufficient details concerning what 
projects or initiatives he led, nor has he offered corroborative evidence to substantiate the claimed 
results of significant economic contributions or changes within the marketplace or IT field. The 
Petitioner claimed that his experience has transformed the IT field, as well as that he designed, 
developed, and implemented IT structures that allowed companies to achieve consistent revenue 
growth, improved performance, reduced costs, and increased customer satisfaction. While this may 
be true, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence of how he has transformed the IT field or 
how the achievements he facilitated have extended beyond his employer and the client companies that 
engaged his services. 
6 
Regarding his Florida-based business _________ the Petitioner has not explained how 
he wi II create a revenue stream so substantial as to affect the national economy or generate tax revenue, 
nor has he demonstrated how his assistance to U.S. companies will be on such a scale as to impact the 
national economy. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes 
to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers. Evidence in the record suggests that 
earned about $25,000 in 2017 and operated at a loss. Additionally, Florida 
.... b_u_s-in_e_s_s-re_c_o-rd_s_i_n_d-ic_a....,te tha~ , I is inactive and administratively dissolved for 
not filing an annual report in 2020. While the Petitioner claimed that he will allow U.S. companies to 
expand into foreign markets and that he can secure their success, he has not provided details 
concerning how he would do this or identified any U.S. companies seeking his business or looking to 
expand into Europe, Brazil, or other parts of Latin America. Without sufficient information or evidence 
regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record 
does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's 
business would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. 
at 890. Accordinqly, the Petitioner has not established how his proposed endeavor activities as a CEO 
or those involving! I would have national importance. 
Regarding I the Director noted in the decision that the Petitioner's position withl I began 
after the filing of the petition and tharl !does not appear to be a registered business operating in 
any U.S. state. As this business opportunity materialized after the filing of the petition and therefore 
would not establish the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing, we conclude that it does not assist 
the Petitioner in establishing the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Furthermore, the lack 
of operating status in the United States suggests that the Petitioner's work as CEO forl I is not 
currently a viable proposed endeavor activity. Even if U.S. operating status were established, the 
Petitioner has not explained what his role as a CEO entails such that we can understand his proposed 
endeavor activities of expanding data centers and I I business in the United States. Although the 
Petitioner claimed that he will enhance the U.S. business ecosystem, he has not explained what this 
means or how he will do it. Moreover, it is not apparent how provid
1
ing data 
1
enter infrastructure to 
the specific clients and companies that choose to contract with would have national 
importance. In Dhanasar, we noted 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 . at 889. We acknowledge the Petitioner's explanation 
that this activity would impact more than justl ts served companies by potentially reaching the 
clients, employees, and affiliates ofl ts globally located client companies; however, the 
Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence or explanation to substantiate this assertion. 
The Petitioner submitted numerous recommendation letters, many of which were authored by 
colleagues or clients known to him from his prior employment positions withl I The authors 
praise the Petitioner's personal and professional qualifications and set forth generalized examples of 
the value he offered in various business endeavors. However, none of the authors demonstrate 
knowledge of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, nor do they assert that the Petitioner's 
accomplishments and contributions extended beyond his specific employer and clients. Accordingly, 
we conclude that these letters offer little probative value in this matter. Generalized conclusory 
statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. 
v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C.1990) (holdingthatan agency need notcreditconclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). The submission of reference letters supporting the 
7 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters so 
as to determine whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N 
Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to 
"fact"). 
Similar to the authors of the recommendation letters, the Petitioner repeatedly referenced his 
experience, expertise, and knowledge concerning IT and business as the reason he will be able to 
provide nationally important benefits to the United States. However, the Petitioner's personal and 
professional qualifications 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 that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's 
first prong. 
Returning tol ts advisory opinion letter, we note that his analysis concerning national 
importance hinges upon the existence of cross-border business, but I I provides little 
discussion of how the proposed endeavor would actually incorporate any cross-border activity. The 
Petitioner has not identified any U.S. companies that have contracts with him, his business, or his 
employer, nor has he established that he works with any specific U.S. companies that have interest in 
cultivating cross-border business. A~ I has offered little reasoning for why, apart from 
cross-border activity, the endeavor would have national importance, his opinion is of little probative 
value in the analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. MatterofCaronlnt'l,Inc ., 19 I&NDec . 791,795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject 
an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in 
any way questionable. Id. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies primarily upon his prior arguments and the evidence he previously 
submitted to reassert his eligibility. We acknowledge the printouts froml l's website, which 
feature both the Petitioner as CEO and the company's claimed operations in the United States; 
however, this evidence does not address the numerous shortcomings we previously identified 
concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor activities withl I The Petitioner argues on appeal 
that his proposed endeavor will significantly impact the economy. While IT and business consulting 
are important, the Petitioner has not offered a sufficient connection between his activities as a chief 
executive and a corresponding impact on the economy. Therefore, the Petitioner's claims have not 
been substantiated. 
Upon a review of the evidence in its totality , we conclude that the Petitioner's proposed work does not 
meet the fir st prong of the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to 
support his claims that the endeavor has national importance. Because the documentation in the record 
does not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the 
Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibilityfor a national interest waiver. 
Further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, 
would serve no meaningful purpose. 
As the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the remaining arguments regarding the other Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. 
8 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (197 6) ("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 l&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that he qualifies for the underlying classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. In addition, the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong 
of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Accordingly, we conclude that he has not established he is 
eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be 
dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9