dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 18, 2024 In Re: 34759853 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a computer scientist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 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 that the record did not 
establish that the proposed endeavor was of national importance. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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 they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) 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. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit 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 (USCTS) 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. 
Id. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
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 
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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 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. To evaluate whether a 
petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence 
documenting the potential prospective impact of their work. 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently described his proposed endeavor. In his initial statement, he stated 
that his proposed endeavor is "the practice of the occupation of Computer Science (CS), including CS 
(STEM) Higher Education." He did not provide further details to adequately clarify what his endeavor 
would encompass. The Director noted this issue in the request for evidence (RFE). In response to the 
RFE, the Petitioner stated that he proposed to "build manpower" in computing, "[o ]utput work in the 
industry that is founded on the Computing occupation," and "[ c ]onduct research on the topic of the 
convergence of Machine Learning (ML) or Artificial Intelligence (AT) and High Performance 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in concluding 
that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
Computing (HPC)." We agree with the Director's decision this is not a well-detailed description of a 
proposed endeavor. Anyone seeking this waiver must identify "the specific endeavor" that they 
propose to undertake, as the term "endeavor" is more specific than the general occupation. Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889; see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. A petitioner should offer details not only as to what the 
occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically 
within that occupation. Id. The Petitioner in this case has not conformed to these requirements. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner additionally stated that he "recently created a company to enable 
[him] to provide consulting services." We also agree with the Director that the Petitioner's inclusion 
of a consulting company constitutes a material change in the endeavor. 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 Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). The inclusion of consulting is 
a distinct addition from the initial proposed endeavor as it significantly expands the endeavor outside 
the original focus. As the Dhanasar framework requires an analysis of the substantial merit and 
national importance of the specific endeavor proposed by an individual, such an addition is material 
to his eligibility for a national interest waiver. Also, a petitioner must demonstrate eligibility 
requirements for the requested benefit at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The 
Petitioner's proposal to now establish a consulting company, submitted for the first time in his RFE 
response, cannot establish eligibility as it was not presented in the original petition. Accordingly, we 
will only consider the proposed endeavor as described in the initial filing when conducting our analysis 
under the Dhanasar framework. 
Overall, the Petitioner has not adequately established how his proposed endeavor will have a broader 
impact on the field, a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or substantial positive economic 
effects, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. 26 I&N Dec. at 889. As it concerns his current 
position as a professor, similar to the petitioner in Dhanasar, while the Petitioner's plan to instruct 
students has substantial merit, he has not demonstrated that his actions as an individual instructor 
would impact the computer science field more broadly. Id. at 893. 
Regarding his research plans, while we recognize that research in the fields mentioned by the Petitioner 
may result in broader implications, the Petitioner has not clearly explained his plans, such that he has 
not met his burden to establish his proposal is of national importance. As noted above, the Petitioner 
has stated that he will "[c]onduct research on the topic of the convergence of Machine Leaming (ML) 
or Artificial Intelligence (AI) and High Performance Computing (HPC)," but has not provided 
sufficient further information to adequately define his research proposal. Stating the general area of 
research, as the Petitioner has done here, without more, does not sufficiently describe a specific 
proposed endeavor to allow for analysis and assessment under the three-prong Dhanasar framework. 
26 I&N Dec. at 889; see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(l). 
Furthermore, the record does not contain sufficient supporting evidence to establish the endeavor's 
national importance. 2 The letters of recommendation mainly address the Petitioner's skills or past 
work. We observe that some of the letters of recommendation discuss the shortage of computer 
science educators and the importance of teaching computer science. However, the evidence does not 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
establish how the intention to fill a single position would have a national impact on this claimed 
shortage. In addition, the general importance of the field of computer science does not confer national 
importance on the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In determining national importance of a proposed 
endeavor within the Dhanasar framework, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 
industry, or profession in which the individual will work, but the impact of the specific endeavor that the 
individual will undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The remaining record concerns the Petitioner's past accomplishments, such as employment 
verification, evidence of the Petitioner's training certifications, association memberships, and past 
research papers. The Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance 
as it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments and experiences, not the specific endeavor's 
potential impact in the computer science field. Generally, this type of evidence is more appropriate 
for the second prong when determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
As such, in the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not 
nationally important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not 
establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend to affect the region or nation 
more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. He has also not shown that benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As 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) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are 
unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
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. 
4