dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cybersecurity

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 20, 2024 In Re: 31032051 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an automation and cybersecurity manager, 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 that the Petitioner did not 
establish that he was eligible for the requested classification or that a waiver of the classification's job 
offer requirement, 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. An 
advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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). 
Once eligibility for the EB-2 visa classification is established, they must then establish 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, 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner is a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner states that he is a highly accomplished cybersecurity engineer with 22 years of 
experience in information security. He currently serves as the chief of cybersecurity for the I I I I He states that he has also served in academia, teaching and lecturing on computer and 
cybersecurity. He states that his proposed endeavor is to support public and private companies in 
various industries as a consultant to promote their development in cybersecurity and information 
protection. 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of his education and experience, a resume, a 
personal statement describing his proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a national interest 
waiver, and recommendation and support letters. He also submitted industry reports and articles 
discussing the importance of and increasing demand for cybersecurity in the United States. 
Following initial review, the Director determined that the Petitioner had established that his proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit and national importance and that he had met the first of the factors 
under Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884. However, the Director issued a request for evidence 
(RFE), allowing the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish his 
eligibility for the national interest waiver under the remaining Dhanasar prongs. The Petitioner's 
response to the RFE includes an additional recommendation letter expressing interest in working with 
the Petitioner on his proposed endeavor. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not 
submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of 
a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. 
The Director stated that the record did not sufficiently demonstrate "what the Petitioner intends or 
proposes to do as an automation and cybersecurity consultant." The Director noted that the 
recommendation letters do not discuss or demonstrate knowledge of the Petitioner's specific proposed 
1 See also 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 USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree in business 
administration awarded in 2011. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). 
2 
endeavor. The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not established "that he has influenced the 
field beyond the normal expectations of a cybersecurity and automation consultant" or otherwise 
described his contributions to the field of cybersecurity. Additionally, the Director determined that 
the Petitioner did not establish that his contributions were of such value that, on balance, they would 
benefit the United States even if other qualified U.S. workers are available. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director ignored evidence, conducted a 
partial analysis, and did not "provide a thorough assessment of the evidence of record across all 
filings." The Petitioner states on appeal that, in not discussing the totality of the evidence submitted, 
the Director's decision "is flawed amounting to an abuse of discretion." In his brief on appeal, the 
Petitioner references evidence already in the record and states that this evidence demonstrates by a 
preponderance of the evidence that he merits a national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director abused her discretion in failing to address all evidence, citing 
Buletini v. INS, 850 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994) in support. The court in Buletini, however, did 
not reject the concept of examining the quality of the evidence presented to determine whether it 
establishes a petitioner's eligibility, nor does the Buletini decision suggest that USCIS abuses its 
discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. When USCIS 
provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be 
required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address 
every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 
2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir.1992); see also Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. 
Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. US. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). 
We conclude that the record reflects the Director's consideration of all evidence in the totality even 
though the Director did not address each piece of evidence individually. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Director imposed "novel or undefined and arbitrary requirements" 
that are not required for eligibility for a national interest waiver. Specifically, the Petitioner states that 
the Director erred in requiring that he demonstrate contributions to the field "beyond adding to the 
general pool of knowledge," or that he has "influenced the field beyond the normal expectations of a 
cybersecurity and automation consultant." We disagree. While the Director notes these deficiencies 
in the Petitioner's evidence, the decision does not indicate that the Director based her decision solely 
on these deficiencies or imposed arbitrary requirements. Rather, as noted above, the record reflects 
the Director's consideration of all evidence in the totality. 
In determining whether a petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider 
factors including, but not limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related 
or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, at 890. 
To support his claimed record of success in the field, the Petitioner relies on letters of recommendation 
from his former colleagues. However, the letters do not provide specific examples indicating that the 
Petitioner's work has impacted the field of cybersecurity or led to the creation of an information 
3 
I 
security policy or change in existing policy or practice. 3 For example, a letter from the Corporate 
Manager of Risk withl llists the Petitioner's job duties with the company as business 
information security officer. Although the letter states that the Petitioner was successful in this 
position and benefitted the company, it does not describe any specific achievements that had a broad 
impact in the field of cybersecurity. Nor does it provide examples of how the Petitioner is well­
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Similarly, a letter from the Chief Risk Officer of 
Ilists the Petitioner's job duties with the company as chief information security officer 
and states that he was successful in this role. While the letter states that the company "increased its 
creditworthiness to its customers and minded the possibility of governmental penalties," it does not 
explain in detail why this achievement was significant. Other letters in the record also attest to the 
Petitioner's successful performance of his job duties, but do not include details of his achievements 
that impacted the field of cybersecurity or examples of how he is well-positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor. Additionally, the recommendation letters do not analyze the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor or offer evidence of its impact. 
The Petitioner contends that the Director ignored evidence, such as the Petitioner's academic 
credentials and personal statement. However, the Director's decision referenced the Petitioner's 
education and experience and explained why she found such evidence to be insufficient to establish 
eligibility. As such, we do not find support for the Petitioner's contention. 
In his personal statement, the Petitioner describes his record of success throughout his career. He 
states that he has participated in "creation of policies, procedures and response plan for relevant 
incidents and cyber intelligence reducing technological risk of [the] company." However, the 
Petitioner did not submit evidence to explain the significance of these achievements. The record does 
not include evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's work has influenced the field of cybersecurity. 
Nor does the record include a detailed business plan or other description of how the Petitioner plans 
to advance his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's personal statement contains a general assertion 
that his proposed endeavor "can be very important for both public and private companies, especially 
in small communities in the USA," but he provides little to no information on how his endeavor will 
operate. The Petitioner's assertions, without evidence to substantiate them, do not establish his 
eligibility. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has an academic background and successful professional 
career working in cybersecurity, but he has not shown that this work renders him well-positioned to 
advance his specific proposed endeavor as an automation and cybersecurity manager. We examine 
the factors set forth in Dhanasar to determine whether, for instance, the individual's progress towards 
achieving the goals of the proposed endeavor, record of success in similar efforts, or generation of 
interest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, at 
890. The Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently demonstrated that his work has served as an impetus 
for progress in the development or change of cybersecurity policy. 
The Petitioner continues to rely upon the asserted merits of the services he will provide, his personal 
and professional qualities and achievements, and the importance of cybersecurity generally. However, 
as set forth above, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance 
3 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
his proposed endeavor. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the requisite second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. As such, analysis of his eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, 
would serve no meaningful purpose. 4 Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown eligibility for a national 
interest waiver. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in 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. 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 
issues in the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-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). 
5