dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Network Architect

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 26, 2023 In Re: 28448919 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a computer network architect, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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 denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
the Petitioner's eligibility under any of the three Dhanasar prongs. 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 United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of amaster's 
degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F).1 Meeting 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification.2 
We will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows 
that they are recognized as having adegree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered 
in the field. 
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. 
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 discretion3, 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 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Director did not analyze the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification. The 
Petitioner asserted he is an individual of exceptional ability and meets at least three of the six criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii).4 Upon de nova review, we conclude the Petitioner has not established 
eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability and therefore he has not established eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 classification. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have 
reviewed and considered each one. 
An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, 
or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning 
relating to the area of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) 
The evidence indicates the Petitioner earned aforeign tftulo de Bacharel in Systems Analysis. Therefore, 
he has established eligibility under this criterion. 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-
part-f-chapter-5. 
3 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
4 The Petitioner stated that he is "a member of the professions holding an Exceptional Ability ..." (emphasis in original). 
The record includes evidence that the Petitioner earned the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, but it does not 
support a finding that he earned an advanced degree. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not provided employer letters in 
accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B), as the letters do not contain exact employment dates nor demonstrate how 
the Petitioner's work experience was progressive in nature. Therefore, we will only analyze his eligibility for the EB-2 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
2 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien 
has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
The Petitioner provided his resume, which includes his employment history, and he submitted letters of 
recommendation from former colleagues to corroborate his past employment in various positions. Some 
of the authors do not clearly establish their authority to write on the companies' behalf or how they possess 
knowledge of a particular company's employee records. More importantly, the letters do not contain 
exact dates for the Petitioner's employment. Although most authors state the year when they first met 
the Petitioner or started working with him, they do not state when exactly the Petitioner's employment 
began and ended, or whether the Petitioner worked full-time for the employer. As the letters do not show, 
individually or collectively, that the Petitioner has at least ten years of full-time experience in the 
occupation, we conclude the Petitioner has not established his eligibility under this criterion. 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) 
The Petitioner acknowledged that practicing his profession does not generally require a license. To 
support his eligibility under this criterion, the Petitioner provided CISCO completion certificates for 
courses on various topics, such as cybersecurity. However, training course completions do not establish 
the Petitioner has a license to practice the profession or a certification for a particular occupation. The 
record indicates the Petitioner has practiced his profession since earning his tftulo de Bacharel in 2005; 
however, the certificates state the Petitioner completed the CISCO courses in 2020. As such, the training 
course certifications appear to have little bearing on his qualifications or ability to practice his profession, 
given that the Petitioner earned them about 15 years after already beginning his profession. Therefore, 
the evidence does not establish the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) 
The Petitioner did not submit evidence for consideration under this criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) 
The Petitioner stated that he belongs to al llabor union. Although the Petitioner Iisted the website 
address of the labor union and his identification number, the record does not include any actual evidence 
of membership, such as photocopies of membership certificates or website screenshots confirming 
membership. It is the Petitioner's burden to provide evidence to support his eligibility for the requested 
benefit and it is not incumbent upon USCIS to search foreign websites on the Petitioner's behalf. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence to establish what the union membership requirements 
are, such that we could determine whether the labor union is aprofessional association. Accordingly, the 
evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. 
3 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) 
The authors of the recommendation letters praise the results the Petitioner achieved for individual 
companies and clients, as well as his contributions to the success of particular projects. While we 
acknowledge these claims, none of the authors identify any specific contributions the Petitioner made to 
the information technology (IT) field. Although the Petitioner mentions he won an award, he provided 
little evidence of receipt of the award or any explanation of how it constitutes recognition for 
achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field. We reviewed all documents in the 
record and do not find sufficient support for a conclusion that the Petitioner has recognition for 
achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established eligibility under this criterion. 
Summary of Exceptional Ability Determination 
The record does not support a finding that the Petitioner met at least three of the six regulatory criteria for 
exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Rather, we conclude that the evidence supports a finding 
of eligibility under only one criterion. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established his eligibility as an 
individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. As the Petitioner has satisfied 
only one criterion, a final merits determination is not required. 
B. The National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor the 
individual 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner intends to open his own company,.___________ _. which specializes in 
providing advice and consultancy services on information technology (IT) matters, including 
cybersecurity and computer networking. The Director determined the Petitioner's endeavor has 
substantial merit. While the Petitioner provided details regarding his planned employment, the 
evidence does not establish the national importance of the endeavor. Specifically, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that the benefit of his services will extend beyond his company and those who engage 
him for his services. Further, he submitted little evidence to establish how his specific endeavor would 
influence the IT field or otherwise impact the nation. For instance, the record does not reflect that his 
services are different, better, or cost less than other IT services, nor has he presented evidence to 
establish his services would be available on a scale that rises to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner referenced the relevance of IT and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 
(STEM) fields, the monetary value of the IT industry, its growth potential, and the importance of IT 
work to the nation's economy. We acknowledge the importance ofIT and STEM fields, as well as 
the importance of immigrant entrepreneurs and small businesses; however, the Petitioner has not 
4 
sufficiently explained how his work in computer networking and cybersecurity would produce an 
impact rising to the level of national importance. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's business plan in which he described his vision, mission, and the services 
he will provide. The Petitioner provided an overview of sustainability practices and corporate 
responsibility. However, the Petitioner has not explained what specific measures or practices his 
company will undertake in these areas, such that we might use these factors in determining the 
proposed endeavor's importance. 
Although the Petitioner highlighted that his endeavor would positively impact the economy, tax 
revenue, and job creation, he has not offered sufficient evidence to corroborate these claims. He 
provided five-year growth projections in his business plan but does not sufficiently substantiate the 
origin of the projections. The business plan states, '"[a]ll revenue was developed based upon the 
assumptions that will be infmmed in the Financial Plan;" however the financial plan section of the 
business plan does not contain sufficient information on how he will achieve the claimed revenue. 
While the Petitioner plans to focus on providing services to government and state agencies, utilities 
companies, and the finance industry, he has not estimated the number and size of clients he would 
need to obtain to sustain the projected revenue levels. As the Petitioner has not provided a sufficient 
foundation or corroborating details to support the growth projections, we conclude that they have little 
probative value. 
Likewise, we question the job creation projections explained on pages 39 and 47 of the Petitioner's 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). Not only do we question the accuracy of the 
math calculating the number of indirect jobs his proposed endeavor will create, but we also question 
the conclusion that the purported creation of four direct jobs rises to the level of national importance. 
As we stated above, the Petitioner has not established his business will operate on a scale 
commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner emphasized President Biden's initiatives to address cybersecurity vulnerabilities and 
the importance of such measures for national defense. The Petitioner concluded that his proposed 
endeavor impacts a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or is 
the subject of national initiatives. We agree that the cybersecurity field and the ability of citizens to 
connect to the Internet are matters of national importance. However, the Petitioner has not submitted 
sufficient evidence of the impact of his proposed endeavor on President Biden's initiatives. For 
instance, the Petitioner has not claimed to have developed any new cybersecurity measures, as opposed 
to implementing or installing measures already known and in existence, nor does the evidence 
demonstrate the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is federally funded. Accordingly, we cannot agree 
with the Petitioner's conclusion that his endeavor impacts a matter that a government entity has 
described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives. 
We reviewed the advisory opinion froml Iuniversity. In the national 
importance section of his opinion, I I discusses similar arguments to those which the 
Petitioner already presented. In addition. I I mentions the importance of cybersecurity, 
connectivity infrastructure, and remote work to society's welfare and the nation overall, the job 
opportunities the endeavor will create, as well as the demand for IT professionals and the shortage of 
talent. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 
5 
industry, or profession in which the individual will work; but rather, "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See id. Other relevant questions are what the broader 
implications of the proposed endeavor are and how the endeavor may have national importance, for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field. Here, the 
Petitioner and I I improperly rely upon the importance of the industry and profession as 
sufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
The recommendation letters contain the authors' praise of the Petitioner's expertise and the successful 
results he achieved for employers and clients, and in carrying out his duties. However, these letters 
do not meaningfully discuss the proposed endeavor or provide specific details supporting its national 
importance. Furthermore, the letters do not demonstrate that the Petitioner impacted the IT field or 
the nation as a whole. Therefore, the letters do not support a conclusion that the proposed endeavor 
has national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner continues to assert his eligibility under each of the three Dhanasar prongs. 
~port, he submits a new business plan for a new company he will create,I I 
L__J The new business plan analyzes cybersecurity's applicability in market sectors such as retail, 
finance, and healthcare. The Petitioner emphasizes his cybersecurity services but appears to de-
emphasize networking advice and consulting services. In addition, the new business plan provides 
new revenue and job creation projections, among other changes. For these reasons, we conclude the 
Petitioner's new business plan constitutes a new set of facts and a material change in the proposed 
endeavor and we will not consider the new facts and changes in dete1mining the Petitioner's eligibility 
under the Dhanasar framework.5 
A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing for the requested benefit and must continue 
to be eligible for the benefit through the adjudication of it. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). It is well 
established that a visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after 
a petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 l&N 
Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). Furthermore, a petitioner may not make material changes to a 
petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of 
lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). If significant changes are made to the initial 
request for approval, a petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition that 
is not supported by the facts in the record. 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. For the reasons explained, the arguments and evidence the 
Petitioner submits on appeal do not overcome this determination. Further analysis of his eligibility 
under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose.6 
5 Nevertheless, we reviewed the new business plan and conclude it does not establish the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor for reasons similar to those already discussed above. 
6 Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. 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). 
6 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he qualifies as amember of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or as an individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. Additionally, the 
record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established eligibility 
for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 
l&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7