dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 11, 2025 In Re: 36552425 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, I Iseeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as 
a senior site reliability engineer. Urequests the Beneficiary's classification under the 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&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. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish a beneficiary is an 
advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. Here, the Director concluded the Petitioner sufficiently established 
that the Beneificary qualified as an advanced degree professional. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that the beneficiary merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&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: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
• 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its 
potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with the Director's conclusion that the proposed endeavor, 
utilizing advanced computing technologies, including cloud computing, data processing, and analysis 
techniques, among other technologies, has substantial merit. However, while the Petitioner 
established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, they did not establish it had national 
importance. 
The Petitioner stated the following regarding the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor: 
The [Beneficiary's] proposed endeavor is to use advanced computing technologies, 
including cloud computing, data processing and analysis techniques and high­
performance data storage and data centers, as well as data privacy, data security, and 
cybersecurity technologies, to implement user interface enhancements and 
optimizations for I I e-commerce platform. More specifically, the Beneficiary's 
endeavor is to leverage advanced computing and data privacy, data privacy, data 
security and cybersecurity technologies to develop personalized pricing strategies 
tailored to individual users' preferences, purchasing behaviors, and regional economic 
conditions, as well as targeted marketing campaigns and customized product offerings 
based on user preferences. 
The Petitioner further indicated that the Beneficiary's work would allow it to enhance user experience, 
games, systems, and services, and allow the company to increase its revenue as well as further U.S. 
technological capabilities to "sustain the U.S. and global economy." The Petitioner asserted the 
proposed endeavor would "advance I I market dominance" leading to substantial U.S. economic 
benefits in the billions of dollars while bolstering consumer well-being. 
In concluding the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed 
endeavor the Director reasoned it did not establish that his proposed endeavor would have national 
implications in his industry and stand to impact the field more broadly. The Director stated the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond the 
company and impact the engineering, e-commerce development, technology, and U.S. cultural 
interests broadly, commensurate with national importance. The Director further addressed the 
Petitioner's contention that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor would have an impact on STEM 
(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields important to the nation's 
2 
compettt1veness. The Director indicated it did not adequately show that one individual within the 
company would have a far-reaching impact on STEM fields and broader implications on federal 
technology initiatives. In addition, the Director discussed submitted industry reports and articles 
provided by the Petitioner, concluding these reflected the importance of the Beneficiary's industry and 
its general relevance to govemmentinitiatives, but did not substantiate the specific broader impact of 
his work outside of LJ and its clients. In sum, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor would have national or global 
implications within the field and have significant potential to employ U.S. workers and/or broadly 
enhance societal welfare, cultural or artistic enrichment, or a matter that the government has described 
as having national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director misapplied the legal standard of review and disregarded 
probative evidence demonstrating the Beneficiary's eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. The 
Petitioner maintains they established the broader implications of the Beneficiary's work, including its 
positive economic and societal impacts and it asserts it submitted substantial evidence to demonstrate 
that his proposed endeavor would continue to advance the U.S. interest in attracting and retaining 
critically important STEM workers. The Petitioner also emphasizes the shortage of STEM workers in 
the Beneficiary's field. The Petitioner states it contributes several billion dollars in revenue annually 
to the U.S. economy and that the Beneficiary would contribute to this substantial economic impact. It 
further asserts the Beneficiary would contribute to several critical and emerging technologies, thereby 
having an impact on broader U.S. societal welfare. The Petitioner states the Beneficiary's 
contributions could lead to the implementation of similar advanced computing and data security 
solutions within e-commerce frameworks and potentially applied across various industries outside the 
gaming sector, and stimulate demand for skilled labor, including engineers, developers, security 
experts, and other technology professionals. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" trne. Matter ofChawathe, 25 
I&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 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Upon 
de novo review of the record, we agree with the Director's evaluation of the evidence, and conclude 
the Petitioner did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary's proposed 
endeavor would have national importance as contemplated under the Dhanasar framework. 
In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. We therefore "look 
for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting that "[a]n undertaking may have national 
importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." 
Id. Again, the determinative issue in this matter is not the national importance of the industry within 
which the Beneficiary works, namely cloud infrastrncture or similarly related subjects. Rather, the 
Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of the specific, proposed endeavor of the 
Beneficiary's work at Das a senior site reliability engineer. The Petitioner's assertions and the 
provided evidence explain the general value of the Beneficiary's asserted field and a shortage of 
workers, but it does not sufficiently demonstrate that his specific employment would likely lead to 
3 
breakthrough technologies in the digital entertainment industry or cloud infrastructure and that it 
would have a broad impact at a national level. 
For instance, the Petitioner submitted of letters from industry experts and a professor to demonstrate 
the Beneficiary's integral role developing cloud infrastructure for streaming services. Although the 
letters discuss the Beneficiary's achievements, the letters do not sufficiently address the Beneficiary's 
specific endeavor or the broader national impact of his work at The letter of support from the 
senior regional director at discussed his work for a former employer, not and 
asserted that he "fills a critical shortage in the U.S. workforce in the U.S. technology sector/STEM 
fields," while also acknowledging his "record of software engineering achievements." However, this 
letter emphasized the Beneficiary's past accomplishments, and this evidence relates more to the 
second Dhanasar prong, being well-positioned, rather than the first prong of the Dhanasar framework 
specific to national importance. 
The Petitioner also provided an expert opinion letter from S-S-, 2 a professor at I 
asserting that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor had national importance and explaining howLJ 
and the industry impacts the economy. The letter opines on the benefits of products and the 
global reach of its gaming systems through 123 million monthly active users as well as substantial 
revenue asserted as $24.5 billion in 2023. However, the letter does not sufficiently detail how the 
Beneficiary's role within would have a broad impact on these large use and revenue numbers. For 
example, the expert letter discusses the Beneficiary's implementation of"user interface enhancements 
and optimizations" and "sophisticated cloud-based infrastructure solutions," but it does not 
sufficiently describe these solutions and innovations and how his work would have a broad impact on 
the company's revenue, and in tum, the global or national economy. Without a financial analysis of 
the Beneficiary's work, it is unclear how the Beneficiary, as opposed toOwould reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the Beneficiary's position as a senior site reliability 
engineer would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial 
positive economic effects for our nation. While the Petitioner continues to make general claims 
regarding its standing within the digital entertainment industry and its high levels of revenue, it did 
not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how the Beneficiary's individual employment would have any 
projected economic impact on job creation. For instance, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the 
Beneficiary's contributions could lead to the implementation of similar advanced computing and data 
security solutions within e-commerce frameworks applied across various industries outside the gaming 
industry, thereby stimulating demand for skilled labor such as engineers, developers, security experts, 
and other technology professionals. However, again, the Petitioner did not properly articulate the 
Beneficiary's claimed innovations, nor how his work would extend beyond the gaming field, and in 
turn, lead to the substantial hiring of other technology professionals. Without such evidence, the 
record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the 
Beneficiary's services or position that would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
2 We use initials to protect privacy. 
4 
I 
Lastly, the Petitioner further asserts that the Beneficiary's work would have a broader societal impact 
by contributing to critical and emerging technologies in the STEM fields. The Petitioner did not 
sufficiently explain and document how the Beneficiary's specific endeavor would help the United 
States stay ahead of strategic competitors and potential adversaries and contribute to the United States 
achieving or maintaining technology leadership or peer status among allies and partners. See 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.2(B)(l). As discussed, the Petitioner emphasizes many times on the record shortages 
of workers in the Beneficiary's field and how he could fill a need based on his expertise and 
experience. However, the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's 
employment at and his proposed endeavor would have a national impact on the United States' 
ability to remain ahead of strategic competitors or current and potential adversaries. More specifically, 
the Petitioner's did not substantiate that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor would likely 
substantially impact United States STEM competitiveness in cloud infrastructure on a national level. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, and 
therefore we conclude that they have not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for or otherwise 
merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Because the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility 
under Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (noting that 
"courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary 
to the results they reached"); 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5