dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 28, 2024 In Re: 31223372 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner,! Iseeks second preference immigrant classification (EB-2) for 
the Beneficiary, its software engineer, 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 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the 
Beneficiary qualified for classification as an advanced degree professional and his endeavor has 
substantial merit, the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary's endeavor is of national 
importance, that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, 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 ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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. 
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 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest 
I 
waiver pet1t10ns. 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 the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary's endeavor is to work at I I as a software engineer and a member of the 
Software-Defined-Networking (SDN) team that "[develops] cutting-edge 
innovations in the field of Big-data, Cloud computing, [and] Computer networking." The Petitioner 
stated that "[the Beneficiary's] role to build the next generation of the stack will 
help user[ s] get fast deployment, more secure network[,] and cutting-edge on-demand cloud computer 
resource." 
The record shows that since obtaining a master's degree in computer science at in 
May 201 7, the Beneficiary has worked as a software and data engineer and his present employment at 
lbegan in May 2022. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's endeavor is of 
national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. For the reasons 
discussed below, we agree with the Director. 
To evaluate whether the proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we focus on 
the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake and look to evidence documenting 
its "potential prospective impact." 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 contends that the national importance of the Beneficiary's endeavor is evident from the 
widespread usage of I Ias "one of the largest I Iservice providers in the 
United States" and from the company's innovative technologies relating to software-defined 
networking or SDN. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner again 
claimed that I I is "one of the largest I lservice providers" widely used 
by schools and universities, healthcare organizations, and government agencies. The Petitioner also 
stated that "the work and products being developed by in Big-Data, Cloud Computing, and 
1 See 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 USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
Computer Networking contribute immensely to the United States as a whole" by "[fostering] economic 
growth and job creation" and "enhancing the country's technological capabilities." 
Although we acknowledge that the Beneficiary's role as a software engineer is important in developing 
theI Ithe Petitioner has not demonstrated that the economic implications and 
technological advancements resulting from the company's operations would be directly attributable to 
the Beneficiary's particular role as a software engineer. The issue here is not the broader implications 
of the company's innovations in SDN or the utilization of its products by government and industry, 
but rather the potential prospective impact of the Beneficiary's specific proposed work as a software 
engmeer. 
Furthermore, 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." Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner largely relied on the industry articles and reports to 
claim that the field of the endeavor has national importance, instead of focusing on the Beneficiary's 
specific work. With the appeal, the Petitioner again submits reports and articles showing that the 
importance of SDN and cloud computing technology, as well as the U.S. National Science and 
Technology Council's updated list of critical and emerging technologies, claiming that the 
Beneficiary's work aligns with the important priorities of the government. We recognize the value of 
such technological innovations and importance of STEM related professions; however, merely 
working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not consider "concrete examples of public and 
private organizations that already rely on software defined networking (SDN), the technology 
designed by the beneficiary." However, none of the articles and reports specifically mention the 
Beneficiary's name or his work or discuss the government's interest in promoting the use of the 
Beneficiary's specific innovation or solutions, such that it has "national or even global implications 
within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or 
medical advances" or otherwise have broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or ha[ve] other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
The Petitioner further contends on appeal that the Director did not consider pertinent documentary 
evidence on record, such as the letter from I I the Beneficiary's manager at I I or 
the expert opinion letter from I I a professor of computer science and a chair of the 
software engineering program at _____ in New York. The Beneficiary's manager at 
I I describes his skills, knowledge, and commitment in building the next generation of SDN in 
I land that he is a "valuable member of my team inside I I However, the 
letter only shows the Beneficiary's accomplishments in his past engagements and projects and does 
not sufficiently address his specific future endeavor and its broad impact in his field. In addition, the 
Beneficiary's knowledge, skills, and experience in the field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
In analyzing the national importance of the endeavor, the expert opinion letter from Professor 
I I focuses only on the importance of the cloud computing field. For example, the letter states 
3 
that the Beneficiary's "proposed field of endeavor is particularly important to US technological 
competitiveness and national security" and "cloud systems are a fundamental aspect of the networking 
infrastructure on which public and private sector entities depend." But the letter does not include any 
persuasive and corroborating information about the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor and its impact 
rising to the level of national importance. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements 
submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 
1988). However, we are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
individual's eligibility for the benefit sought and the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as it 
conflates the importance of the field overall with the national importance of the Beneficiary's specific 
endeavor. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not evaluate the totality of the evidence on record, 
the Director has clearly acknowledged and analyzed various documents on record but concluded 
overall that the quality of the evidence lacked probative value in supporting national importance of the 
endeavor. Under the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality 
(including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 376; see also Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Moreover, the Director 
is not required to name every single evidence on record. When USCIS provides a reasoned 
consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically 
address each claim the petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence 
the petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013) ( citing Martinez v. 
INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir. 1992); see also Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 
(11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. US. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). We conclude the record 
reflects the Director's consideration of all evidence in the totality even though the Director did not 
address each piece of evidence individually. 
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. Id. at 893. Here, we agree 
with the Director that the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate how the Beneficiary's proposed 
endeavor stands to extend beyond his employer, its business partners, and its clientele to impact the 
software networking industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Nor 
has the Petitioner shown that the Beneficiary's particular research or other future projects offer original 
innovations that contribute to advancements in the cloud-computing industry, or otherwise has broader 
implications for the field. Accordingly, without sufficient documentary evidence of their broader 
impact, the Beneficiary's proposed work as a software engineer in the SDN team withinl do 
not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility for a national interest waiver and further analysis of 
his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no 
meaningful purpose. See INSv. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reach"); Matter ofL-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). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for or otherwise merits 
a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5