dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computer And Information Systems Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 15, 2023 In Re: 26968687 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification, 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 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. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as 
well as any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum 
requirement for entry into the occupation. 1 Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary 
waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a computer and information systems manager 
having worked in the computer and information systems business for more than 10 years in Brazil. 
He holds a bachelor's degree in computer science from Universidadel ?nin Brazil and a post-
graduation certificate in business management froml in Brazil. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner established his eligibility as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree.3 
However, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a 
job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Director found that 
while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, he did not establish 
that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. The 
Director further found that the record does not satisfy the second or third Dhanasar prongs. Upon de 
nova review, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a 
waiver of the labor certification would be in the national interest. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor a petitioner 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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner initially submitted a professional plan with his Form 1-140 indicating that he intended 
to continue working in the field of information technology, "with particular expertise in the areas of 
software development, contract management, strategic business partnerships, financial management, 
and team development." He further stated that he intended to lead an information technology 
organization for "a company that provides consumer products, medicines, or services that is enabled 
by cutting-edge technology to improve people's lives." The Petitioner explained his endeavor would 
"potentially impact" the United States by working with U.S. companies requiring his knowledge, 
contributing to the U.S. gross domestic product and generating tax revenue, working on large and 
highly complex information technology projects, enhancing technology for U.S. companies, and 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 The record establishes that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree from an institution of higher 
education in the United States, and that he has at least five years of progressive, post-baccalaureate experience in his 
specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
2 
obtaining market and investment opportunities for U.S. companies. The Petitioner's initial description 
of the proposed endeavor does not provide details beyond his intention to work as a computer and 
information systems manager for U.S. organizations and businesses. The Petitioner did not include 
any specific plans or evidence about being an entrepreneur and starting an information technology 
consulting business with his initial submission of the Form 1-140. 
The Director issued a request for evidence seeking further information and evidence that the Petitioner 
meets each of the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. In response, the Petitioner submitted a 
statement with further information about his proposed endeavor. He stated that he intended to utilize 
his experience and knowledge to be an executive level information technology product manager and 
an entrepreneur through a new company he incorporated in 2020 with his wife. The company will be 
an information technology consulting business.I I which would 
"provide [information technology] product management consulting and online training services to 
small and medium-sized businesses" with a focus on financial products. 
The Director found that while the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate his endeavor has national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director 
did not apply the proper standard of proof and erred by not giving "due regard" to the evidence 
submitted, specifically the Petitioner's statement, business plan, letters of recommendation, industry 
reports, and articles. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed his evidence to evaluate 
the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of evidence. 
As the Director already determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, we 
will only analyze whether the Petitioner's endeavor is of national importance. If the Petitioner does 
not meet the first prong, the evidence is dispositive in finding the Petitioner ineligible for the national 
interest waiver, and we need not address the second and third prongs. Upon de novo review, we find 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his endeavor satisfies the national importance element of 
Dhanasar ·s first prong, as discussed below. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor to work as an executive level information 
technology product manager for his new business will "generate substantial ripple effects upon key 
commercial and business activities on behalf of the United States - namely, servicing the information 
technology of U.S. companies. His proposed endeavor is a vital aspect of U.S. companies' operations 
and productivity - which contributes to a revenue-enhanced business ecosystem, and an enriched, 
productivity-centered economy." The Petitioner emphasizes his professional experience and 
education to demonstrate he will be sharing his expertise and skills with the product management and 
online training services to be provided by his business. The Petitioner further argues on appeal that 
his "career has helped him advance his proposed endeavor which will benefit the [United States] by 
creating jobs and economic stability.... The company will provide services that will result in 
3 
improved product management and, by extension, revenue increase for a significant number of 
American businesses." (emphasis in original). And he asserts the training services "will result in 
higher proficiency of industry professionals and help bridge the talent gap." (emphasis in 
original). 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the '·potential prospective impact" of his work. See Dhanasar, 26 
l&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner's business plan explains that his new product management and on line 
training services business will "help small and medium-sized businesses in the U.S. thrive and grow . 
. . . " The business intends to initially offer product management services to businesses located in 
specific Florida cities, expanding to other metropolitan citils througlhout the United States by its third 
year. The business would initially have an office in the area "to take a stand and create 
impact, generating jobs in Tech industry for U.S. workers in underutilized areas, improving the wages 
of U.S. [sic] workers, helping to attract investments in the region, and thus encouraging economic 
development." The plan also explains that the business would be dedicated to diversity and inclusion 
since diversity remains an issue in the information technology sector. 
The business plan provides an overview of the expected economic growth of the management 
consulting industry in the United States over the next five years. The Petitioner's business intends to 
focus on product management services related to financial products due to the expected growth and 
demand in the industry. The business will also offer product management training to individuals 
throughout the United States. The business plan explains the business's services; its marketing 
strategy; the Petitioner's chief executive role for the business; his professional expertise; and its 
personnel plan for hiring 84 employees over the next five years. The business plan also provides 
financial forecasts over a five-year period, including total sales projected at over ten million dollars in 
five years, salaries of over 8.5 million dollars in five years, a net profit of over $280,000 in five years, 
a balance sheet with projected net worth, and the projected return on investment over five years. 
However, the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or 
adequately explain how these projections will be realized. The Petitioner also has not provided 
corroborating evidence, aside from claims in his business plan, that his business's future staffing levels 
and business activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to underutilized areas of Florida 
and the United States. Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the 
record lacks evidence showing that the creation of 84 jobs and paying wages of 8.5 million dollars in 
five years rises to the level of national importance. 
In his statement, the Petitioner emphasizes a need for information technology professionals for small 
and medium sized businesses due to growth in the industry and businesses requiring technology 
improvements since the COVID-19 pandemic. He hitlighted his professional experience, an 
invitation to be on an advisory panel at the University of Iand articles recognizing his 
professional achievements and work advocating diversity, equity, and inclusion for information 
technology. The Petitioner's statement also indicates the need for entrepreneurs to offer new and 
innovative products, as well as, to help increase national income and tax revenue, employment 
opportunities, and salaries. 
4 
The Petitioner's claims that his business will benefit the U.S. economy with new jobs, improved 
wages, and tax revenue, has not been established through independent and objective evidence. The 
Petitioner's statements are not sufficient to demonstrate his endeavor has the potential to provide 
economic benefits to the United States. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Also, without 
sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed job duties as an executive level information 
technology product manager for his business would impact the information technology product 
management industry more broadly rather than benefiting his proposed clients and their customers, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed endeavor is 
of national importance. 
The Petitioner further claims on appeal that he demonstrated national importance with his resume and 
recommendation letters from colleagues and clients, which discuss his work experience and expertise 
as a computer and information systems manager. The Petitioner argues that his extensive experience 
and expertise place him in a position "to more rapidly and efficiently provide any U.S. firm or 
company with a competitive advantage, regardless of sector or industry." However, these documents 
relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the 
specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's 
first prong. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. Id. 
For instance, a letter from the Petitioner's colleague emphasizes the Petitioner's information 
technology achievements for a supply chain project and a company's crop science division, as well as 
his strong cultural development skills increasing qualified diverse employees. Letters from other 
coworkers similarly attest to the Petitioner's information technology experience and his importance to 
information technology projects for his employers. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner provided valuable computer and information systems manager 
services for his employers in the past, but the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and 
evidence based on these recommendation letters to demonstrate the prospective impact of his proposed 
endeavor rising 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. Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 893. 
In addition, these letters do not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will substantially benefit 
the U.S. business industries and the field of computer and information systems management, as 
contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it 
has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. The letters do not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's work will have national or global implications in the field of computer and information 
systems management. 
To further su art the national importance of his endeavor, the Petitioner submitted an expert opinion 
from rofessor of computer science, information systems, and cyber security at 
._______.University in~--~ Oregon. However, the opinion claims that the Petitioner would 
be working in an area of national importance, instead of focusing on the Petitioner's proposed 
5 
endeavor. It describes how the United States will continue to have a major shortage of information 
technology workers based on growth in the industry and the demand for talent continues to exceed 
supply. The opinion focuses on the need for information technology professionals and how the 
Petitioner's experience makes him well positioned to fill the need, instead of focusing on the 
Petitioner's specific endeavor having a prospective impact in the field of computer and information 
technology management field. 
The opinion further explains that the Petitioner's endeavor has national importance based on Brazil's 
large market opportunities for U.S. businesses. The opinion indicates that while U.S. companies have 
many market challenges when looking to do business in Brazil, the Petitioner's extensive experience 
in the Brazilian market make him well positioned to advise U.S. companies on information technology 
projects planning to operate in Brazil. The opinion also notes that the Petitioner can contribute to 
improving and facilitating cross-border transactions between the United States and Latin America; 
assist U.S. corporations and U.S. investors interested in making investments and developing 
commercial relationships in the Brazilian market; and increasing foreign direct investment in the U.S. 
economy by supporting Latin American investors to invest in IT projects in the United States. 
However, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor includes 
collaborative works between U.S. companies and Latin America companies, or that he is actively 
targeting U.S. companies that do business, or plan to do business in Latin America or Brazil. Where 
an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, USCIS is not required 
to accept it or may give it less weight. See Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 817 (Comm'r 1988). 
The Petitioner further claims national importance of his proposed endeavor based on industry reports 
and articles describing the shortage in the United States of information technology workers and the 
growth of the industry. The reports explain the tech career outlook, the importance of information 
technology for businesses, and ways to fill information technology jobs. Additional articles relate to 
the importance of augmented and virtual reality technology; the need for employees in the fields of 
science, technology, engineering, and math; the agility of software development teams since the 
COVID-19 pandemic; and the need for mobile apps. 
We recognize the importance of the information technology industry and related careers; however, 
working in the information technology field or starting an information technology product 
management consulting business with online training services is insufficient to establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 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. 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. The industry reports and 
articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically 
attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor extends beyond his future clients or 
employers, to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. The economic benefits that the Petitioner claims depend on 
6 
numerous factors and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between his 
information technology product management work and the claimed economic results. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since 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 his eligibility under the second and third 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 
(BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for 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