dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Systems Networking

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 12, 2024 In Re: 31109069 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a computer systems networking entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as 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 Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification and that he is not eligible for a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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. 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree of expertise and will 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCIS has previously confinned the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United 
States. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 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,3 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 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director erroneously determined that he does not qualify for 
the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner meets three out of the six required criteria; yet the record did not establish he is recognized 
as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. Therefore, 
the Director determined the Petitioner does not qualify for the EB-2 classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability. However, as the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the Petitioner is otherwise eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion, we will 
reserve the issue of the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification. 4 
B. National Interest Waiver 
1. Substantial Merit 
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. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to be the chief executive officer and sole owner of 
his own IT consulting business which will support small and medium sized businesses with network 
infrastructure, cyber security, cloud computing, software provision, and disaster recovery. The record 
3 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 USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
4 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2 
includes information on the Petitioner's proposed endeavor along with articles on government 
initiatives related to cyber security as well as information related to his field of"advanced computing" 
listed by USCIS under the "Critical and Emerging Technology Subfields." We conclude that the 
proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
2. National Importance 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner contends on appeal that the 
Director did not properly analyze all relevant aspects of the record,"[ e ]specially its impacts on a matter 
that a government entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of national 
initiatives." Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Director properly analyzed the evidence to 
evaluate the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of evidence and the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that his proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance element of Dhanasar's first 
prong, as discussed below. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
The Petitioner's focus on appeal is that his proposed endeavor is related to a government initiative and 
is in the STEM field. Although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor may be related to, "an important 
national matter, described as so by government entities and subject to national initiatives," and is in 
the STEM field, the Petitioner must still establish their proposed endeavor has national importance as 
it is presented in the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor falls into 
the "Advanced Computing" category which USCIS' policy manual has identified as a critical and 
emerging technology field." However, while his proposed endeavor may fall into this category, that 
alone does not mean his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. The proposed 
endeavor itself must still meet the level of prospective impact set forth in Dhanasar. In addition, the 
Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor has national importance because the Biden 
Administration has made cybersecurity a priority, specifically in strengthening the cyber workforce 
and attracting STEM talents. The Petitioner states that his expertise falls within the "DHS STEM 
Designated Degree Program List" under, "Computer Systems Networking and Telecommunications," 
and that this means, "[t]hat his proposal has the potential to help the U.S. grow and reach its goal of 
leading the STEM field among the globe." However, as stated above, his proposed endeavor falling 
into this category does not automatically mean his proposed endeavor will rise to the level of national 
importance. 
For instance, an undertaking may have national importance, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The record does not establish that 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have national or global implications within a particular field. 
The proposed company which will provide IT consulting services to small and medium sized 
businesses, could have positive implications to its direct clients, however, the record does not establish 
broader implications within the IT field. The Petitioner states that in addition to his IT consulting, he 
will also be sharing his knowledge with other professionals by providing IT training for individuals 
seeking to enter the IT job market. However, 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. Similarly, in this case, the record does not establish that the 
proposed endeavor will have broad implications in the field beyond his clients and trainees. Therefore, 
3 
although the Petitioner asserts that his endeavor is related to a field the U.S. government has prioritized 
and is in the STEM field, the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor does not rise to the level 
of national importance. 
The Petitioner refers to two of our non-precedent decisions concerning proposed endeavors related to 
the STEM field. This decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind USCIS 
officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). However, the non-precedent cases involved 
publicly disseminated research, and therefore, they would have the potential for broad implications to 
their prospective fields. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. As discussed above, the record establishes 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will impact its direct clients, but the record does not establish 
the proposed endeavor will have broader implications within the field and therefore does not rise to 
the level of national importance. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on, "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. The Petitioner states: 
[E]ven though some of the evidence refers to the field more broadly, from its analysis it is only 
logical to infer that a proposed endeavor in that same field, given the level of details brought 
by the petitioner's Business Plan, will have the potential prospective impact, achieving a 
similar level of national importance such as the one held by the field itself 
While the industry reports and articles in the record establish the U.S. government's interest in 
industries related to the proposed endeavor and while we recognize the value and importance of the 
industry, working in the field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. Here, the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry to establish the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. Although it appears the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
does relate to government initiatives, this statement and the record focus on the broader industry's 
importance and impact, instead of the prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor. Although the industry reports and articles provide good background information and are 
evidence of the U.S. government's interest in the industry; without sufficient documentary evidence 
of the specific proposed endeavor's broader impact on the industry, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
does not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
It should also be noted that an issue not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 28 
I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
Therefore, our analysis above focuses on the points the Petitioner has raised on appeal and not the 
Director's complete decision or any other issues raised in the record. While we do not discuss each 
piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered the record in its entirety. As the 
Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because 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 Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; 
see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
therefore conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner has not established that he 
is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5