dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 11, 2024 In Re: 30107540 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a computer systems engineer/architect, 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 denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter ofChristo '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 his 
proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance 
requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 
884. Because this 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 two 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). 
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. Next, a 
petitioner 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 discretion, 1 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 Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner states that he is a systems architect with more than 20 years of experience in system 
development and specialized experience in developing system integrations on the Mulesoft platform. 
His proposed endeavor is to "work in the American market as a system architect, offering consulting 
services, helping large American companies in the system integration sector, based on [his] specialized 
knowledge ofMulesoft." He proposes to offer the following services to U.S. companies: 
• Analysis of the stability, interoperability, portability, security or scalability of the 
system architecture. 
• Systems engineering, software engineering, systems integration, or distributed 
systems architectures. 
• Selecting appropriate design solutions or ensure compatibility of required system 
components, system data, hardware or software components. 
Through his consulting services, the Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor will: 
• Promote the use of good IT governance practices. 
• Protect the security of sensitive data and deliver quality services. 
• Promote expansion of sectors that need digital transformation. 
• Integrate business-critical systems. 
He farther states that, in his proposed endeavor, he will conduct research on recognized solutions and 
train and qualify new professionals. 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of his education and experience, a professional 
plan describing his proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a national interest waiver, as well as 
recommendation and support letters, an expert opinion, and certificates of achievement. He also 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree awarded in 2006, 
followed by more than five years of progressive experience. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
2 
submitted industry reports and articles discussing cybersecurity and its importance as an initiative of 
the U.S. government. 
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish his eligibility for the national interest 
waiver. The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes an updated professional plan dated March 2023, 
additional industry reports and articles, a letter of intent for a partnership with the Petitioner, and 
copies of evidence already in the record. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner submitted 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, she 
concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor had national 
importance. The Director stated that the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor will have a regional or national impact at a level consistent with having national importance, 
or that the Petitioner's work will have broader implications in his field of endeavor, going beyond his 
clients. The Director concluded that farther consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility under the 
second and third Dhanasar prongs (whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of 
a job offer, and thus of the labor certification) would serve no meaningful purpose. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director's decision "imposed novel 
substantive and evidentiary requirements." In his brief on appeal, the Petitioner references evidence 
already in the record and states that this evidence demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence 
that he merits a national interest waiver. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that 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. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
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 Id. In Dhanasar, we farther 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 Petitioner submits his professional plan in an attempt to support the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor. The Petitioner describes the use of Salesforce technology with Mulesoft in 
business and the demand for information technology (IT) professionals trained in these technologies. 
He then describes his experience and professional accomplishments in training IT professionals 
3 
through his consulting company based in Brazil,I land its training services,! I I I He asserts that he will expand! Ito the United States to offer consulting 
services to U.S. businesses and to train individuals through the._________ ___, 3 The Petitioner 
states that he has partnered "with I !University, licensed by the Florida government, which 
currently has over 5,000 students regularly enrolled in undergraduate and graduate programs." 
"In determining national importance, the officer's analysis should.focus on what the beneficiary will 
be doing rather than the specific occupational classification." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (emphasis added). The Petitioner asserts that his proposed 
endeavor will have a broad economic impact by increasing revenue and creating jobs within American 
companies. However, the Petitioner has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, 
objective evidence. The Petitioner does not provide evidence of his claimed partnership with~ 
University. Although the Petitioner proposes to expand his current consulting business, the record 
does not include a business plan describing how he seeks to implement his proposed endeavor. The 
Petitioner's professional plan does not provide sufficient detail beyond generalized projections of 
"boosting software sales," "increas[ing] employee efficiency," and 'job creation." The Petitioner's 
statements are not specific or detailed enough for us to assess the potential prospective impact of it in 
the abstract, without considering the specific ways in which the Petitioner intends to implement this 
goal. The Petitioner does not explain how his consulting services will have broader implications 
beyond his clients, such as substantial positive economic effects, broad enhancements to societal 
welfare, or contributions to the advancement of a valuable technology. 
The Petitioner submits articles and industry reports describing competitiveness in IT and the 
importance of cybersecurity, as well as an Executive Order demonstrating that science, technology, 
engineering and mathematics (STEM) is a national initiative.4 The record includes a posting from an 
unidentified website by an unidentified author, dated October 2021, and titled "Project Failure 
Statistics: the Shocking Truth." The posting analyzes statistics based on 2015 data to identify mistakes 
of and solutions for project management. However, the posting does not identify the types of projects 
analyzed, does not mention the field ofIT, and does not specifically discuss the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor. Similarly, a May 2023 article from the Harvard Business Review titled 'The Digital World 
is Changing Rapidly. Your Cybersecurity Needs to Keep Up," demonstrates that cybersecurity is 
important for U.S. businesses but does not address the national importance of the Petitioner's specific 
proposed endeavor. The article provides general information and does not focus on the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor. As noted above, the Acting Director determined the endeavor has 
substantial merit, and we agree. However, the question we are examining here is national importance. 
When 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 Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Much of the 
3 In her decision, the Director states that the Petitioner's March 2023 professional plan submitted in response to the RFE 
mentions for the first time his intention to train TT professionals. The Director determined that this was a material change 
to the Petitioner's initial proposed endeavor and declined to consider this aspect in evaluating the evidence. However, 
upon review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner's initial professional plan, dated May 2022, discusses his 
intention to train IT professionals as part of his proposed endeavor. Therefore, this portion of the Director's decision is 
withdrawn and we will consider both the initial and updated professional plans in analyzing the Petitioner's eligibility. 
4 While we discuss a sampling of these aiiicles and rep01is, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
Petitioner's evidence relates to the IT industry generally, rather than his specific proposed endeavor. 
Although we agree that STEM is important and may be the subject of national initiatives, we conclude 
that this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor. Even considering the articles and reports, collectively and in the totality of circumstances, 
the record contains insufficient information or evidence regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
to show broad potential implications demonstrating national importance. 
The Petitioner also references an expert opinion prepared by Dr. I I of I....___, 
University. We acknowledge that the expert opinion includes an analysis of the national importance 
of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In his analysis Dr. I lgenerally describes the role of a 
systems architect and states that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor supports goals of "business 
competitiveness and innovation." Although Dr. I I states that the Petitioner plans to "act as a 
system architect for American businesses," he does not discuss the details of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor with specificity. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the 
Petitioner as advisory. Matter ofCaron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 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. We are ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert 
opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. 
Here, the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details 
of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance. Dr. 
I I does not elaborate on how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will have a 
prospective impact on the United States, including the national or global implications on the IT field, 
the potential to employ U.S. workers, or the positive economic effects. His opinion is general in 
nature, concluding that IT is of national importance "related to the economy and global leadership." 
Dr. I I does not provide a substantive analysis of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor 
or suggest that the Petitioner's skills differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in 
the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies upon the evidence he previously submitted and asserts that the Director 
imposed a novel standard of evidence. However, the Petitioner does not identify the novel standard 
or demonstrate an erroneous application of law or policy. The Petitioner continues to rely upon the 
asserted merits of the services he will provide, his personal and professional qualities and 
achievements, and the trends in IT. However, as set forth above, the evidence does not sufficiently 
demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner 
has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further 
discussion of the balancing factors under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful 
purpose. As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining 
Dhanasar prongs. 5 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
5 Even ifwe had addressed the remaining issues, we still would have dismissed this appeal. As noted above, the Director 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
concluded that, although the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not establish its national 
importance. In the RFE, the Director noted that the Petitioner's initial evidence also did not demonstrate that he is well­
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, or 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. Although the Petitioner submitted a letter of intent in response 
to the RFE in support of the second Dhanasar prong, it did not submit additional evidence in support of the third Dhanasar 
prong. On appeal, the Petitioner references the same supporting evidence submitted with the original petition and RFE 
response. The Director fully addressed the initial supporting evidence in the RFE and explained how it was deficient in 
establishing that the Petitioner met the Dhanasar factors and would be eligible for a national interest waiver. Neither the 
letter of intent nor the Petitioner's assertions on appeal, establish that he meets all of the three Dhanasar prongs. 
6