dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Systems Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 20, 2024 In Re: 29848422 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of computer systems consulting, seeks classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of 
the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 
203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, 
when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, he had not 
established that 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. 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 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 demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner shows: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
In a definitive statement submitted with the petition, the Petitioner stated that he intends to work as an 
entrepreneur in the field of computer systems consulting by developing and expanding his company, 
I l a registered limited liability company in the State of Florida. Through his 
company, the Petitioner asserts that he will provide IT consulting services for small- and medium-sized 
businesses in the United States. 
He farther stated: 
I will pursue this endeavor by leveraging my years of IT business experience, where I 
have worked for several international organizations and businesses. Particularly, I have 
spearheaded projects involving system analysis and development, software 
development implementation, application performance monitoring, and cloud 
environments. In this capacity, I will generate jobs for U.S. workers as well as create 
continuous, significant, and profitable opportunities for the national economy. 
[The company] will operate as a consulting company providing services to small- and 
medium-sized enterprises in the field of software engineering, digital transformation, 
cloud migration, and application performance monitoring. The company aims to 
support American companies in adopting innovative technologies to become more 
agile, flexible, and well prepared to combat the challenges brought to light by the 
COVID-19 pandemic. Through its services, it also intends to help businesses better 
adapt to the new "normal" which has transformed the way we work and conduct 
business. 
The business will be headquartered in Florida, and is set to serve HUBZone areas, 
which are a part of a United States Business Administration program encouraging small 
companies to operate and employ people in historically underutilized business zones. 
2 
The objective is to generate jobs for U.S. workers while offering businesses 
opportunities to build and expand their professional capacities in these underserved 
areas. This will improve wages and working conditions for American citizens, and 
boost investment and economic development throughout such local communities. 
The initial filing also included copies of the Petitioner's academic credentials, a copy of his company's 
business plan, copies of service contracts, an expert opinion letter, letters of recommendation, and 
industry articles and reports in support of his eligibility. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), noting that while the Petitioner's evidence was 
sufficient to establish that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit and that he is well positioned 
to advance his proposed endeavor, the record as initially constituted was insufficient to demonstrate 
that the proposed endeavor had national importance. The Director determined that the Petitioner had 
not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor would impact the regional or national population at a 
level consistent with national importance. The Director further noted that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that his proposed endeavor would extend beyond his "niche" target of small- and 
medium-sized businesses to impact the industry or field more broadly. As a result, the Director 
requested a detailed description of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in order to evaluate his request 
for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
In response, the Petitioner's counsel submitted a letter claiming that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor "is national in scope, and will have broader implications within his field, due to the ripple 
effects of his professional activities." Counsel further emphasized the potential of the proposed 
endeavor, noting that "by organizing, devising, and implementing IT management systems, [the 
Petitioner] will not only contribute to his respective clients' commercial capacities, but he will actually 
ensure such enterprises' national economic contributions, and continuous workflow." Counsel 
concluded by asserting that the Petitioner's professional history and experience uniquely qualify him 
to advance his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner resubmitted his business plan in response to the RFE, and also submitted additional 
articles and reports in support of his eligibility for a waiver of the job offer. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, the record did not establish that the endeavor is of national importance. Specifically, 
the Director noted that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor had implications 
beyond his self-owned company at a level sufficient to demonstrate national importance. The Director 
further determined that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor would have a 
broader impact on the IT field, specifically noting that "benefits that are isolated to a single institution 
or locality in the United States might be so attenuated at the national level as to preclude a finding that 
the proposed endeavor has national importance." 
On appeal, counsel for the Petitioner asserts that USCIS "did not apply the proper standard of proof 
in this case, instead imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applied the law, to the detriment of 
the Appellant." The Petitioner also asserts, through counsel, that the Director disregarded the evidence 
submitted, and provides a brief that emphasizes his qualifications as an entrepreneur in the IT industry 
and asserts that the evidence of record establishes the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
3 
For the reasons provided below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that they meet each 
eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I& N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what they claim is "more likely 
than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the 
preponderance standard, USCIS considers not only the quantity, but also the quality (including 
relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 
77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
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. Further, to 
evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we 
look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his 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. Id. at 893. 
The Petitioner contends that the Director did not duly consider certain pieces of evidence, such as his 
resume and experience, his company's business plan, his work in the field, letters of recommendation, 
and industry articles and reports, and relies primarily upon the evidence and arguments previously 
submitted. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's appellate claims, we nevertheless conclude that 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 analytical framework. 2 
The record includes evidence to support the Petitioner's assertion that he has experience in the IT 
industry. Letters of support from former colleagues and business associates speak to his talents and 
accomplishments on various IT projects undertaken by him in Brazil. We note that the Petitioner's 
experience, however, is not relevant to the first part of the Dhanasar framework, but to the second -
whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Neither the letters nor 
any other evidence within the record provide insight into how the Petitioner's endeavor to establish an 
IT consulting company in Florida will positively impact the region or the industry beyond any clients 
to which his singular business will provide IT consultancy services. 
The record contains an expert opinion letter from a professor of computer science, information 
systems, and cyber security atl Iwho concludes that the Petitioner's proposed 
work has national importance. But the professor does not base his conclusion on the national 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. Although he recites the Petitioner's career history 
and accomplishments, and concludes that "he is exceptionally qualified to hold a position in this field 
within the United States," his findings stem from the significance of the IT field generally, and 
particularly note the importance of e-commerce, cyber security, and infrastructures in many aspects 
of business, military, and civilian activity. Under Dhanasar, however, the Petitioner must establish 
the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor, which is narrower than the overall area, 
field, or industry in which the Petitioner seeks employment. The letter did not mention the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor, which is to establish and develop his own IT consulting company to assist small­
and medium-sized businesses in Florida. The letter therefore does not establish the national 
importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed U.S. work. See Matter o_f Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N 
Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (holding that the immigration service may reject or afford less 
evidentiary weight to an expert opinion that conflicts with other information or "is in any way 
questionable"). 
The record also contains articles and industry reports discussing immigration, entrepreneurship, the 
IT industry, and the shortage of IT professionals. While the Petitioner previously asserted and now 
reiterates on appeal the significance of this material in establishing the national importance of his 
endeavor, we examine the endeavor itself to evaluate its broader impact. These materials do not 
specifically describe the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its potential impact. Rather, these materials 
amount to background information about general subjects. Regarding the articles about the shortage 
of IT professionals in the United States, a national shortage of IT professionals is not, in and of itself: 
sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor. Further, the Department 
of Labor directly addresses U.S. worker shortages through the labor certification process. 
We further note that the Petitioner's counsel refers to these reports and articles throughout the record, 
asserting that the beneficial implications and national importance of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor as an entrepreneur in the computer systems industry are largely reported by institutions of 
distinguished reputation and major media. On appeal, counsel emphasizes the Petitioner's experience 
in the field and asserts that his proposed endeavor "aligns with the national interest by promoting 
technological development, economic growth, and job creation." Assertions of counsel, however, do 
not constitute evidence. Matter o_f Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988) ( citing Matter 
o_fRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)). Counsel's statements must be substantiated 
in the record with independent evidence, which may include affidavits and declarations. 
The Petitioner's business plan emphasizes that his company will help its clients "increase their 
operational efficiency" by "bring[ing] their businesses into the digital age through the development of 
digital products and customized software," and will thus have a positive impact on the operations of 
numerous businesses. The business plan further projects that after its fifth year of operations, it will 
have estimated revenues of approximately $8.6 million, with 35 employees and payroll expenses 
totaling approximately $4 million. General assertions about his company's potential impact are not 
supported in the record by corroborating evidence of the plausibility of those assertions, and a lack of 
detail concerning his proposal makes it difficult to discern how the Petitioner's endeavor differs from 
that of other entrepreneurs in the field who operate IT consulting firms in the United States. Moreover, 
while the Petitioner claimed that his business will serve "HUBZone" areas in Florida, he did not 
provide documentary evidence regarding Hubzones, or explain why his business location in a 
historically underutilized business area would be of national importance. Further, the Petitioner does 
5 
not explain how the potential addition of 35 jobs over the first five years of operations would be of 
significance in the area in alleviating any economic distress or addressing commercial underutilization. 
The Petitioner has not shown how his own business will impact the economy or the industry at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Moreover, as noted by the Director, the growth, revenue, 
and hiring projections provided in the business plan are not accompanied by an explanation of the 
sources used for those calculations. The Petitioner's unsupported statements are insufficient to meet 
his burden of proof A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the endeavor realistically has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic benefits for the United States. 
Consequently, the record does not establish the national importance of the 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. Because the identified reason for dismissal is dispositive of 
the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's 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 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. 
6