dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19499188 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 10, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business development manager, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and a brief asserting that she is eligible for a 
national interest waiver . 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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. 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 ofjob 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. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent 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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 1, 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. 2 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas 
such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's 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. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 To establish that it would be in the national interest to waive the job offer requirement, a petitioner must go beyond 
showing their expertise in a particular field. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a 
degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute. individuals of 
exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of 
their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given petitioner seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 
or as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, that individual cannot qualify for a waiver just by 
demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in their field of expertise. See 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 886 n.3. 
2 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate 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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record indicates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
Regarding her claim of eligibility under Dhanasar' s first prong, the Petitioner indicated that she intends 
to continue "to develop and implement innovative sales plans and strategies with the goal of increasing 
sales, revenues and profit of U.S. companies, specifically the ones doing business in the Cybersecurity 
and Information Technology industries." She asserted that she plans "to pursue my future endeavors as 
a Business Development Manager, developing key growth sales strategies, tactics and action plans in 
order to achieve established revenue targets of U.S. companies." The Petitioner further stated that her 
proposed work includes offering customers "effective and appropriate cybersecurity and technology 
solutions according to their business operations and needs."4 She also noted her undertaking involves 
"studying customers' needs aimed at finding the most appropriate solutions to meet their business needs," 
developing and maintaining "strong business relationships with existing/potential customers," and 
developing strategic planning and identifying "business development opportunities." In addition, the 
Petitioner asserted that she planed "to provide training services to U.S. organizations and sales 
professionals by conducting workshops, seminars, lectures, and training sessions" and to share her 
knowledge at "Information Technology and Cybersecurity events." 
In addition, the Petitioner stated that she provided "a table with the prospective sales that I am planning 
to generate for U.S. companies .... This table represents my sales forecast of cyber security products 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 Her list of proposed services for U.S. companies includes creating "innovative and effective sales strategies for U.S. 
organizations with the objective of increasing sales and expanding their products/services into new national and 
international marketplaces," designing and developing "proposals for the implementation of innovative cybersecurity 
solutions to potential clients," conducting "assessments of company cybersecurity capabilities" and proposing "solutions 
to improve their system and data security," planning and promoting "initiatives to expand U.S. cybersecurity products and 
services in the international market," offering "sales information and recommendations so that U.S. organizations will be 
able to conduct adequate strategic business planning," supporting "U.S. companies to establish sales objectives by creating 
adequate sales plan," maintaining and expanding "customer base by counseling company sales workforce, building and 
maintaining rapport with key customers, [and] identifying new customer opportunities," recommending "cybersecurity 
products," and developing and implementing "effective training programs to educate other sales professionals, company's 
workforce, and management teams." 
3 
and services as a result of my proposed endeavor in the United States." She claims that "[i]n the first 
year, I will be able to contribute with sales on total of $2,263,375 dollars; in the second year, sales on 
total of $4,972,110; in the third year, sales on total of "$8,171,019 dollars; in the fourth year, sales on 
total of $10,605,273; and in the fifth year, sales on total of $12,274,112." The Petitioner, however, does 
not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated. While the record includes an 
"Economic Impact Analysis" (EIA) based on the sales the Petitioner "plans to generate," this EIA does 
not outline the methodology the Petitioner utilized in creating her five-year sales forecast. 5 
The record includes an August 2020 "Confirmation of Employment" letter from .... l ______ ___. 
stating that the Petitioner has been employed by the company full-time as a "Business Development 
Manager" since June 2019. 6 This letter indicates that her duties include identifying and positioning "new 
service offerings and solutions created by thel I organization," communicating "the 
Security Services portfolio positioning and value to target client segments and I I stakeholders," 
creating and delivering "quotes and proposals for customers with accurate" information, and maintaining 
"tight interlock with the Customer Success and Business Development teams supporting other 
architectures to ensure that a single, consistent engagement process is followed across all teams." The 
Petitioner is also responsible for collaborating with "sales, product management, operations, and 
marketing to position and sell . . . Security Services," supporting "sales in buildinP the pipeline and 
forecasting bookings for Security Service opportunities," engaging with 1 J Delivery teams to 
[ e ]nsure consistent and accurate scoping of client delivery engagements," and documenting "all intight I 
opportunities for accurate Security forecasting." This information shows that multiple factors and 
team members contribute to the company's Security Service sales projects. 
Furthermore, the record contains presidential executive orders on "America's Cybersecurity 
Workforce," "Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure," 
"Promoting Private Sector Cybersecurity Information Sharing," and "Improving Critical Infrastructure 
Cybersecurity." The Petitioner also submitted information about the U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) Information Technology Strategic Plan, the U.S. National Cyber Strategy, the 
National Initiative for Cybersecurity Careers and Studies, cybersecurity as an economic and national 
security concern for our country, cybersecurity staffing shortages, and the cybersecurity workforce 
gap. In addition, she provided articles discussing Congressional legislation creating the Cybersecurity 
and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) within DHS, the purpose and mission of CISA, the value 
5 Based on the sales the Petitioner "plans to generate," the EIA (prepared by~----~ ofl , J 
concludes that "the total estimated impact in the U.S. economy will be approximately $70.2 million in a period of five 
years with the potential of creating 4 78 full time equivalent jobs. Additionally, her plans will generate an increase in 
employees and proprietor's salaries on total of approximately $28.7 million dollars." In support of the appeal, the 
Petitioner provides a March 2021 letter from I I stating that "[ o Jut of the 4 78 FTEs jobs, 78 FTEs are direct 
effect employment and 400 FTEs are induced or indirect effect employment. Although the 400 FTE jobs are categorized 
as induced or indirect effect employment, they are considered economic direct jobs because these jobs would not have 
been created but for the increase in demand." 
6 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for her to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we consider information about this position to illustrate the capacity in which she intends 
to work in order to determine whether her proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar framework. The 
record also includes a June 2015 job offer letter from I I for the position of "Senior Services Product Manager" and 
2016-2021 communications relating to job opportunities with I !(Practice Director), D I ~ (Team Lead, Business Development)J !<Senior Sales Engineer),! I 
[Business Development Manager and Inside Sales Leader), and I !(Regional Account Manager). 
4 
of cybersecurity during the coronavirus pandemic, the surge of cyberattacks against hospitals during 
the pandemic, the ways in which the pandemic has made the U.S. more vulnerable to cyberattacks, 
China's campaign to steal U.S. intellectual property, and the economic cost of intellectual property 
theft. Moreover, the Petitioner presented information about cyberattacks on Capital One, U.S. political 
parties, Yahoo, Marriott, Under Armour, eBay, and Target. The record therefore supports the 
Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed work as a business development manager in 
the Cybersecurity and Information Technology industries has substantial merit. 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted an advisory evaluation letter froml I associate 
professor of computer science and information systems atl !university, stating that "[t]he 
United States information infrastructure, ranging from telecommunications to computer networks, is 
the foundation for much of the business, military and civilian activity that occurs daily throughout the 
country." He farther indicated that "technology research analysts, such as [the Petitioner], is [sic] 
important to the nation overall" and that she "could become a reliable source of exports of both 
products and services in the future." I !concludes that the Petitioner's "work has both 
substantial merit and national importance for the United States." 
In his initial letter, I I, a Customer Solutions Director a~ I asserted that the Petitioner's 
"proposed work of developing and promoting solutions to prevent cyberattacks is clearly in the 
national interest of the United States. Her future work has the potential not only to benefit American 
corporations, but also help U.S. Government entities to protect confidential information of U.S. 
citizens."! lturther stated: "[The Petitioner] will also be supporting U.S. companies to close 
more deals, increasing their revenues, and as a consequence, generating more jobs in the country. For 
instance, we have a plan for her to support our company to close U.S. $10 million in new contracts for 
the next 5 years." 
With the appeal, the Petitioner offers second letter froml I discussing how the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor "contributes to the generation of American jobs." 7 I lstates that "when we sell new 
products, we not only retain and allocate our resources, but we expand, hiring more people . . . . [The 
Petitioner's] work in generating more deals plays an important role for the company. As much as she 
sells, as much as we hire. And this is not limited to direct roles but also correlated areas."8 Regarding 
the Petitioner's efforts in generating sales and revenue at I I the appellate submission includes 
company documentation indicating that her business development projects also involve both a "Sales 
Representative" and a "Delivery Representative." 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated 
the national importance of her proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not shown 
that her undertaking "would have substantial regional or national implications on the U.S. economy or 
the cybersecurity industry at a level of national importance," as opposed to primarily benefiting her 
"employers and clients." Additionally, the Director indicated that "any potential job creation or economic 
benefits resulting from the various multipliers" mentioned in the EIA "would not be directly attributable 
11 ~s letter notes that "[i]n 2019,c=] had revenues ofU.S. $51.9 billion with a workforce of more than 75 thousand 
employees." 
~ .... __ ....,b letter was accompanied by a data table he prepared listing the Petitioner's 2021 sales project revenue and the 
number of "Total Direct Jobs" created, but the company project documents offered in support of his data table do not 
corroborate the job total claimed (318). 
5 
to [the Petitioner's] work, which again, primarily benefits [her] employer(s) and clients." The Director's 
decision also pointed out that the potential job creation and economic benefits discussed in the EIA 
involved "several potential and additional factors beyond [the Petitioner's] contributions." The Director 
further noted that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that the potential prospective impact of her proposed 
endeavor has national or global implications within the field. 
In her appeal brief, the Petitioner asserts that her proposed business development work "offer[s] 
customers the most effective and appropriate cybersecurity and technology solutions according to their 
business operations and needs." She contends that her undertaking "has a direct relation to the protection 
of the U.S., their companies, and citizens while providing solutions to protect their information 
technology and communication systems." The Petitioner further indicates that her "proposed endeavor 
of improving U.S. organizations ' cybersecurity capabilities is clearly in the national interest of the 
country." In addition, she argues that her work "impacts her company, partners, and her clients' 
workforces" and that "the number of jobs [the Petitioner] created while developing and selling a project 
to a client is higher than the number of jobs created for the company itself." The Petitioner also claims 
that the jobs she "is directly and indirectly creating benefit the whole country and not only a specific 
company." She concludes that her proposed work stands to "provide a significant impact to the whole 
country 's economy directly while selling projects to companies and increasing job posts in the country; 
and indirectly while providing protection to businesses and their clients." 
In determining national importance , the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we 
further 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. 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. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide valuable business development services for her 
employer, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demon strate that the prosp ective 
impact of her propo sed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar , we determined 
that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because 
they would not impact his field more broadly . Id. at 893. Here, we conclude the record does not show 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her emplo yer or its 
partner s and clientele to impact the cybersecurity industry , information technolog y field, or U.S . 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
With regard to the Petitioner's assertion that she plans "to provide training services" and to educate 
"professionals in the field," the record does not show that this undertaking has broader implications 
for her field, as opposed to being limited to those who participate in her training sessions. While the 
Petitioner 's plans to provide training services have merit, the record does not demonstrate that her 
instructional activities offer benefits that extend beyond her trainees to impact the fields of 
6 
cybersecurity or information technology more broadly . Likewise , in Dhanasar , we determined that 
the petitioner 's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they 
would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. 
In addition , the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation . Specifically , she has not shown that the claimed job creation resulting from the 
projects she will undertake on behalf of her employer are implications of her specific proposed 
endeavor to provide business development services . The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
economic implications of these projects would be mainly attributable to her own role as a business 
development manager to an extent that her proposed work holds national importance. For example , 
the record includes documentation from her employer indicating that her business development projects 
also involve both a "Sales Representative" and a "Delivery Representative ." 
While the Petitioner 's five-year sales forecast indicates that her future projects for clients have growth 
potential, it does not demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her 
undertaking would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasa r. 
Id. at 890. For instance, she has not offered sufficient evidence that her specific projects would employ 
a significant population of workers in an economically depressed area or that her endeavor would offer 
a particular U.S. region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or 
business activity . Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that any increases in company revenue 
attributable to her business development work stand to substantially affect economic activity 
regionally or nationally . Accordingly, the Petitioner 's propo sed work does not meet the first prong of 
the Dhanasar framework . 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of her eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar , therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not established she 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 , with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7