dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cybersecurity

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 30, 2024 In Re: 33960239 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner- who describes himself as a "an Enterprise Architecture and Data Warehousing 
expert"-seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 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 the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner qualified for a national interest waiver. 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Id. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 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 Petitioner initially stated that he intended to operate a company providing cybersecurity 
consultancy services. He provided the following summary of his proposed endeavor: 
I will spearhead the development of blockchain-based anti-fraud solutions, employing 
cutting-edge techniques such as advanced identify verification, smart contracts, 
encryption methods, amongst others, to mitigate the prevalence of fraudulent activities 
that currently plague the financial industry. This approach will promote security, 
transparency and efficiency in major industries including healthcare services, 
education, small businesses, and fintech which play a crucial role in the national life 
and socioeconomic wellbeing of the nation. By focusing on leveraging emerging 
technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and robust cyber­
security measures, my endeavor holds significant value and national importance, as it 
essentially applies a tool important for the success of business and national security 
operations-Information Technology (IT). 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the 
Director concluded the record did not establish that the endeavor is of national importance. On appeal, 
the Petitioner reiterates arguments for the national importance of his endeavor and cites documentation 
previously included in the record, asserting that the Director did not review all of the submitted 
evidence. Upon review, for the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his endeavor in order to establish his 
eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
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. In determining 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Goining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Comts (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 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
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." Id. 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. Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner provided documentation from public and private entities discussing issues concerning 
technology and cybersecurity in the financial services industry. This material, however, does not 
provide sufficient insight into the Petitioner's plans to work as a provider of cybersecurity services. 
While this documentation relates to the area in which the Petitioner intends to develop his business, it 
does not speak to how the Petitioner's individual endeavor to nm a consultancy company would have 
a potential prospective impact of national importance. 
The Petitioner also submitted letters of recommendation discussing his work in several positions in 
which he deployed his skills to achieve the goals of his employers and the goals of those to whom he 
provided consultation. These letters express confidence in the Petitioner's abilities, citing his 
intelligence, dedication, competence, motivation, and passion. Although these letters discuss the 
Petitioner's previous job performance, they do not provide any information concerning his proposed 
endeavor. We note that evidence of the Petitioner's job experience and performance generally relates 
not to the national importance of an endeavor, as discussed in the first prong of Matter of Dhanasar, 
but to the second,2 which evaluates whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance an endeavor. 
As such, the letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor. 
Regarding the Petitioner's descriptions of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner's statements within 
the record discuss the importance of cybersecurity in terms that are wide-ranging and seemingly 
applicable to any institution, organization, small business, or individual with a stake in securely 
moving or retaining financial assets. The Petitioner has not specifically described how he would 
undertake an endeavor of a scale that would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. While the Petitioner has described in broad terms the services 
he intends to provide, he has not explained how his individual company would have a national-level 
impact to "mitigate the prevalence of fraudulent activities that currently plague the financial industry." 
2 Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, determinations 
concerning the second and third prongs are unnecessary to the ultimate decision; therefore, they will be reserved in this 
decision. 
3 
In addition, the Petitioner's statements generally speculate that the creation of his company would 
create jobs in the United States, but he did not provide independent evidence or otherwise explain how 
his company would create jobs at a level that would have a significant impact on a given region or 
have a prospective national impact on a specific field. A petitioner must support assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The record 
does not include a plan or other indication of how the Petitioner would operate a company that would, 
as he claims, impact either public institutions, private businesses, or the economy at the level of 
national importance contemplated under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Further, the 
record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has the significant potential to 
broadly enhance societal welfare or to contribute to the advancement of a valuable technology. 3 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, 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 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 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor has national importance. As the 
Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not 
established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l). 
4