dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cyber Security

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 27, 2024 In Re: 33966587 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, 1 a cyber security specialist, seeks 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
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 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents additional evidence and primarily reasserts his proposed endeavor's 
national importance under the first prong of Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). 
In particular, he argues that his artificial intelligence (AI) framework aligns with national security 
priorities and initiatives, and that it fosters U.S. economic competitiveness. 
Upon review of the entire record, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision regarding the Petitioner's 
eligibility under Dhanasar 's first prong. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); 
see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and 
affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely 
confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding 
that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give 
"individualized consideration" to the case). We agree with the Director's well-reasoned decision that 
the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated how his proposed endeavor would have a broader 
impact extending beyond his company and its clients, to rise to the level of national importance. 
1 The Petitioner has two alien registration numbers: For best results, we encourage the 
Petitioner to use when contacting the agency. 
In his appellate brief, the Petitioner attempts to cure the deficiencies discussed in the Director's 
decision and argues that his endeavor is poised to combat cyberattacks through real-time threat 
detection and mitigation; enhanced national preparedness; and alignment with National Security 
Memorandum (NSM-22). The Petitioner also submits an updated letter from Dr.I la list 
of the Petitioner's prior work on various "Critical Infrastructure Sector" related projects, and other 
previously submitted evidence. While the Petitioner summarizes his proposed endeavor's noteworthy 
goals, his appellate submissions are, nevertheless, insufficient to overcome the Director's decision. 
The Petitioner has not adequately detailed in the record below, or on appeal, how he specifically plans 
to accomplish these goals and has not shown that his endeavor would have broader implications in the 
industry or U.S. economy. 
Dr. I Iclaims in her updated letter that the Petitioner's work has "significantly influenced" the 
cybersecurity industry, and will continue to do so in the future. However, she again does not provide 
specific examples or evidence demonstrating what these contributions were or how they affected the 
industry. Instead, she points to previously submitted documents "showcasing his accomplishments" 
and the newly submitted list of the Petitioner's projects. While she alleges that the Petitioner's "most 
cutting-edge work is protected by Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) and/or is considered the 
Intellectual Property (IP) of the organizations he conducted the work for," she does not corroborate 
her assertions with any evidence. Additionally, contrary to her claim, the Petitioner's various white 
papers, without more, do not adequately show how his work "significantly influenced" the 
cybersecurity field particularly where, as here, the evidence does not reflect these papers were 
published, much less cited, by other experts in the field. Dr.I I letter is insufficient to address 
the Director's concerns or otherwise resolve the deficiencies in the evidence. 
Likewise, the Petitioner's list of "Critical Infrastructure Sector" related projects documents various 
activities the Petitioner reportedly perfonned in his career. Based on his own descriptions, however, 
the impact of his work appears limited to his company and its clients. The Petitioner has not explained 
how these activities demonstrate his work has had, or shows that his future work will have, broader 
implications in the cybersecurity industry. 
The Petitioner also resubmitted a large number of documents already in the record. But, again, these 
documents do not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have broader implications . 
Most of these white papers provide only general information about the benefits of artificial intelligence 
and cybersecurity, and they do not elaborate on the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in sufficient detail, 
including how he plans to create and implement his framework. For example, the Petitioner states his 
framework will "[p ]rocess large volumes of threat intelligence data from diverse sources . . . in 
real-time using Natural Language Processing (NLP)" and will "leverage[] anomaly detection 
techniques and real-time NLP which can analyze this data to identify unusual patterns potentially 
indicative of emerging cyberattacks." He generally references various pre-existing technologies he 
has "considered" using and states his framework will integrate NLP, anomaly detection, and predictive 
analytics. However, he does not articulate how he will knit these technologies and components 
together to build his "novel AI framework." While he vaguely describes stages of his "development 
and implementation plan," the evidence appears to indicate that his framework's composition is 
undefined and in flux. Although he asserts on appeal that his specific AI framework "positions the 
US at the forefront of cybersecurity," he does not articulate a specific design for his endeavor and, 
instead, seemingly intends build out a model based on the feedback of his potential clients. 
2 
The evidence submitted on appeal is not sufficient to overcome the Director's decision. Because the 
Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor's national importance as required by Dhanasar 's 
first prong, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his 
eligibility under Dhanasar 's second and third prongs, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose, 
and we reserve those remaining issues and arguments. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
("As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of 
which is unnecessary to the results they reach."); see also Matter of D-L-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 568, 577 
n.10 (BIA 2022) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise 
ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3