dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computer And Information Systems

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 8, 2024 In Re: 34867926 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner lists his occupation as "computer and information system" and states that he plans to 
make a "significant contribution to the national interest of the United States in the fields of technology, 
information systems with an emphasis on information science computing and IT project management." 
He 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 Texas Service Center determined that although the Petitioner established that he 
qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as an advanced degree professional, he did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. Applying the three-prong analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 
l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), the Director concluded that the Petitioner: (1) did not establish that 
his endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, (2) did not demonstrate that he is well­
positioned to advance the endeavor, and (3) did not show that on balance, waiving the job offer 
requirement would benefit the United States. 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 because the Petitioner did not establish that he will 
pursue an endeavor that has substantial merit and national importance and thus, he did not satisfy the 
two elements comprising the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Because the identified basis for 
denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's 
appellate arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 
25 (1976) ("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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
Further, we adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the national importance 
of the Petitioner's endeavor. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also 
Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming 
the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted 
the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that 
appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized 
consideration" to the case). 
In denying the petition, the Director stated that the Petitioner must do more that discuss his occupation; 
the Director stated that the Petitioner must specifically identify his proposed endeavor and offer details 
about the type of work he plans to undertake within his identified occupation. The Director 
determined, however, that the Petitioner discussed his past work in the field of engineering and did 
not identify a specific proposed endeavor. As such, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not 
satisfy the substantial merit element of the first prong. 
Likewise, the Director determined that the Petitioner also did not satisfy the national importance 
element of the first prong. Aside from failing to identify a proposed endeavor, the Director determined 
that the Petitioner also did not demonstrate how his proposed endeavor would broadly impact 
engineering, the field in which the Petitioner has worked. Further, the Director determined that the 
record does not show the proposed endeavor's significant potential to employ U.S. workers or its 
potential to provide substantial economic benefits to the region where the endeavor would operate or 
to the country as whole. 
Based on the evidentiary deficiencies discussed above, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did 
not satisfy the substantial merit or the national importance elements of the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner highlights his research and educational credentials as well as his "leadership 
and expertise in managing IT project management" during his 15-year career, noting that he has 
received "various awards" in recognition of his work. The Petitioner also points to his work's impact 
on a prior employer's operational costs and improved system reliability and claims that his "continued 
work in the United States would further enhance national interests by fostering innovation, supporting 
economic growth, and strengthening national security through technological advancements." 
However, the Petitioner does not specifically identify a proposed endeavor, thus neglecting to clarify 
precisely how he would achieve these stated goals. 
Importantly, the Petitioner states that he intends to "pursue advanced studies at the 
Ithereby indicating that his immediate focus is on educational pursuits and 
not a specific endeavor that will have "national or even global implications" within the Petitioner's 
field of engineering, or that will broadly impact the United States through, for example, "substantial 
positive economic effects" as contemplated in Matterof Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-890. And 
although the Petitioner states that his education at will enable him to "make substantive 
contributions to the advancement of technology and national interests," he does not describe specific 
contributions or advancements he intends to make through his endeavor, nor does he specify a 
proposed endeavor - aside from education - to explain how his activities will result in broad 
implications for the nation or for the engineering field. 
2 
I 
In sum, the Petitioner does not adequately address the factors raised in the denial and makes no 
compelling arguments explaining that he would pursue a specific endeavor that meets the substantial 
merit and national importance elements of the first prong of the analytical framework in Matter of 
Dhanasar. As such, the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's conclusion regarding these issues. 
As noted earlier, the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, and we 
therefore reserve any discussion of the remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. at 25 ("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. at 526 n. 7 ( declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3