dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 18, 2024 In Re: 35059827 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, _______ seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as 
a Platform Engineer II. requests 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 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. 
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. 
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: 
• 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, 
developing cloud infrastructure, has substantial merit. However, while the Petitioner established that 
the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, they have not established it has national importance. 
The Beneficiary, through his work at intends to develop cloud infrastructure for gaming and 
streaming services on the ______ and expects that developments in cloud infrastructure 
will lead to advancements in computing, cloud services, high-performance data storage and data 
centers, and edge computing devices. At D he plans to "make original contributions on the 
Kubemetes Platform" and "contribute to the autoscaling of the cloud infrastructure using KEDA and 
Vertical Pod Autoscaler." The Petitioner asserts that cloud infrastructure for gaming and streaming 
services is of national importance because of its relationship to technological innovation and that the 
cultural influence which will lead to economic growth and sustainability. 
In addition to documentation regarding the Beneficiary's qualifications as an advanced degree 
professional, the record contains certifications, letters of recommendation, industry reports and 
articles,! Icorporate report, an expert opinion letter, and an article authored by the Beneficiary in 
2020 titled ___________ among others. The Director concluded that the record 
did not establish the national importance of the endeavor as it did not show that the endeavor would 
have broader implications beyond the impact to the Beneficiary's current employer, □ Moreover, 
the Director determined that the record did not establish that the endeavor would result in positive 
economic effects or otherwise broadly enhance societal welfare. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director misapplied the legal standard of review and disregarded 
and discredited probative evidence demonstrating eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. The 
Petitioner maintains that they established the broader implications of the Beneficiary's work including 
the positive economic and societal impacts and the important innovations in cloud infrastructure and 
edge computing devices his work will provide to the industry. Further, the Petitioner contends that the 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F .4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts ofAppeals 
in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
Director did not analyze the testimonial letters correctly and disregarded the far-reaching implications 
of the Beneficiary's work. 
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" true. Matter of Chawathe, 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 has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed endeavor has 
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. Although the Petitioner contends it has demonstrated the value of the Beneficiary's work through 
the submission of articles highlighting the importance of artificial intelligence and computer science, 
such as "Just How Shallow is the Artificial Intelligence Talent Pool?," "Cloud gaming and the future 
of social interactive media" and "The Objectives of the Critical and Emerging Technology Standards 
Strategy," the matter here is not whether these initiatives, as well as the topics of cloud infrastructure 
or similarly related subjects, are nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the 
national importance of the specific, proposed endeavor of the Beneficiary's work at Das a Platform 
Engineer II. These articles and information, while explainingthe general value of the field, do not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's employment atLJwill lead to breakthrough technologies in the 
digital entertainment industry or in cloud infrastructure. 
Similarly, the Petitioner also argues the submission of letters from industry experts and a professor 
show the Beneficiary's integral role developing cloud infrastructure for streaming services. Although 
the letters discuss the Beneficiary's achievements, the letters do not address the Beneficiary's current 
endeavor or show the broader impact of his work at The letter of support from the Director of 
the _________ Systems Lab at the explained that the 
Beneficiary provided, "[c ]ritical and original contributions to the development of cloud infrastructure 
through his student employment atl ISpecifically, he developed a Gallery application on 
the Cloud." He also described how the Beneficiary "is a successful contributor to the U.S. technology 
sector STEM fields, with a record of outstanding software engineering achievements at successful 
technology companies." This letter emphasizes the Beneficiary's past accomplishments and relates 
more to the secondDhanasar prong, being well-positioned, rather than the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework of national importance. 
The Petitioner's assertion that the Director did not analyze the probative value of the letters of 
recommendation is a mischaracterization of the decision. In concluding that the recommendation 
3 
letters did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Director acknowledged 
the letters and the Beneficiary's integral role in developing cloud infrastructure but determined that 
the proposed endeavor would benefit the company and that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the 
national implications, beyond the benefits to of the Beneficiary's work. 
The expert opinion letter from S-S,2 a professor at I I found the proposed endeavor has 
national importance and explains how D and the industry impacts the economy. While the letter 
opines on the benefits of products and the global reach of the gaming systems through the 
monthly active users as well as the large revenue of $24.5 billion in 2023, the letter does not explain 
how the Beneficiary's role withinOwould have a broader impact. For instance, in describing the 
Beneficiary's work he states, "[a]dvancing these technologies would have significant economic 
benefits for land many other American video game companies, who would be able to 
distribute their product more quickly and more broadly." Without a financial analysis of the 
Beneficiary's work within it is unclear how the Beneficiary, as opposed to would reach the 
level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not show how the Beneficiary's position as a Platform Engineer II has 
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 asserting that its "standing 
within the digital entertainment industry allows it to contribute several billion dollars in revenue 
annually to the U.S. economy, and the [B]eneficiary's contributions to the petitioner is an essential 
element of ______ ability to continue to do so year over year", the Petitioner did not 
sufficiently explain or demonstrate how the Beneficiary's employment alone would have any projected 
economic impact or job creation. 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 would reach 
the level of "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
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. 
2 We use initials to protect privacy. 
4