dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cybersecurity

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WL. 31, 2023 In Re: 27467786 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional, 
as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification . 
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 Petitioner had not 
established 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 53 7, 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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of 
discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 visa classification as an advanced degree 
professional. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner 
has established a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in 
the national interest. 
The Petitioner indicated in his Application for Alien Employment Certification, Form ETA-750 Part B, 
and in part 6 of the petition that he will be employed as a CISO- Chielflnformation Security Officer. In 
the petition he states that he will be "responsible for developing an information security program, which 
includes procedures and policies designed to protect enterprise communications, systems and assets from 
both internal and external threats.'' 
The first prong relates to the substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director determined that the Petitioner's endeavor - operating his 
own cybersecurity consulting business as a CISO - has substantial merit, but that he did not satisfy the 
national importance requirement. 2 
In the denial, the Director took note of the evidence submitted by the Petitioner to establish the national 
importance of his endeavor, including, among other things, his own statements, reference and 
employment letters, documentation about the importance of STEM occupations and the cybersecurity 
field where he seeks employment in the United States, a national interest waiver opinion letter, and 
other evidence relating to his academic and professional background. Then, the Director discussed 
the collective shortcomings of the submitted evidence, explaining the reasons why she ultimately 
determined that the Petitioner did not meet Dhanasar 's national importance requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains: 
[He] will be working in his company, [S-], specifically as the owner and [CISO], 
capitalizing on his specific talents developed over the course of a highly successful and 
prolific international career in information technology. His enterprise will generate 
employment opportunities as it farther proliferates as described in the business plan. 
Given his international exposure, he brings new and unique approaches to cyber 
security defense strategies. His concentration in the financial sector in Brazil will 
similarly be his focus in the U.S., not just his local client banking institutions. Beyond 
the banking sector, he will engage with other sectors as appropriate to employ sound, 
proven and emerging cyber defenses to defeat threats and vulnerabilities. 
As an applicant possessing a STEM degree and associated experience in a STEM 
occupation, [he] presents the U.S. with a wealth of urgently needed talent to help defend 
the U.S. IT infrastructure, both commercial and national security. While he will serve 
2 The Director also concluded that the though the Petitioner met the second Dhanasar prong, he did not meet the third 
Dhanasar prong. 
2 
his local clientele, the effects of his efforts transcend the national interest by enhancing 
confidence in businesses such as banking and commercial applications, enhancing 
availability, detecting and countering strategies. 
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 specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner 
must demonstrate the national importance of his services as a CISO operating his own consulting 
business rather than the national importance of cybersecurity technologists, the cybersecurity and 
information technology industries, or the wide range of business fields or industries impacted by 
cybersecurity threats. In Dhanasar, we 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. Upon de novo review, we conclude the record does not show that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficientl y extend beyond his business, future employers 
and future clientele to impact the cybersecurity field or U.S. economy more broadl y at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 3 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to an opinion letter from a professor, D-H-, as probative evidence of 
the national importance of his endeavor. However, beyond reiterating information about his proposed 
endeavor provided in the Petitioner's business plan and other statements in the record, D-H-'s analysis 
is not specific to the Petitioner's actual endeavor. He states that the Petitioner qualifies under the first 
Dhanasar prong because "[h ]is proposed endeavor to provide services in the Information Technology 
industry in the U.S., is in demand and of national importance." He provides narrative about the tasks 
typically performed by individuals employed in the cybersecurity industry, noting for instance: 
"information security analysts assess their organizations' information technology and computer 
systems, identifying strengths and weaknesses .... They blend knowledge of security hardware and 
software, organizational needs, and cybersecurity risks with organizational policies and industry 
standards." But he does not adequately address how the Petitioner's endeavor through his work with 
S- is of national importance. 
D-H- also discusses the expertise the Petitioner has gained through his academic career and prior 
employment in the information technology field, asserting that the Petitioner "with extensive 
experience in the Information Technology sector, has the capability to render services to companies 
in the United States." However, the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his academic pursuits and 
prior employment relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific 
endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first 
prong. Though D-H- opines that the "United States would greatly benefit from the expertise and skills 
of an experienced Information Security Architect Lead such as [the Petitioner]," he does not 
sufficiently identify, analyze or discuss the nature of the specific work the Petitioner will perform 
within his prospective endeavor in the United States. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
preponderance of evidence that he is qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence 
alone but by its quality. Id. Without more, D-H-'s letter does little to support the Petitioner's 
contention that his proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
For these reasons, we conclude that the D-H-'s letter is not probative towards establishing the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion 
statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter ofCaron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 79 5 
(Comm 'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with 
other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. For the sake of brevity, we will 
not address other deficiencies within D-H-'s analyses . 
Similarly, the Petitioner has provided reference letters from former colleagues who outline his work 
accomplishments and describe how the Petitioner has provided beneficial services to the companies 
that employed him. For example, P-, a CISO for a company that employed the Petitioner abroad, 
discusses work projects in which the Petitioner was involved, noting that the Petitioner was "the 
manager responsible for a team of more than twelve people, with strategic attributions such as 
managing the area's budget (CAPEX and OPEX), defining strategy and solutions in the medium and 
long term and meeting all the regulatory requirements to which are required." He discussed the 
Petitioner's specific areas of responsibility, indicating among other things that the Petitioner has "[a] 
great ability to execute projects related to cybersecurity, I recommend, without a doubt, the concession 
of [the Petitioner] to permanent residency in the United States of America." 
While P-, along with the other letter writers discuss his IT capabilities and experience, and appear to 
hold the Petitioner in high regard, the submitted letters do not provide sufficient clarity regarding the 
national importance of the specific endeavor that the Petitioner will focus on should this petition be 
approved. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific [prospective] contributions 
or their impact in the field have little probative value . See 1756, Inc. v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp . 
9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration 
benefits adjudications). The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters so as to determine whether 
they support the petitioner's eligibility. Id. Therefore, we conclude that the reference letters in the 
record offer little insight to the matter at hand. In evaluating the evidence, the truth is to be determined 
not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Additionally, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation . For instance, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that S- "[ w ]ill generate employment 
opportunities as it further proliferates as described in the business plan." The business plan states that 
S- is to commence operations in 2022 and forecasts that S- will generate income of $100,000 in its 
first year of operation, which will steadily climb each year to reach revenues of over $900,000 by the 
end of its fifth year of operation. The Petitioner estimates his business will create at least five jobs 
within this five-year timeframe . However, though the business plan discusses the correlation between 
gaining business clients and the need for additional employees, the plan does not sufficiently detail 
the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and 
staffing projections will be realized. 
4 
Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his business will impact the nation at a level 
commensurate with national importance . For instance, he has not shown that his company 's future 
staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States. While the 
Petitioner asserts that S- will hire five U.S. employees within five years, he has not offered sufficient 
evidence that the area where the company operates is economically depressed, that he would employ 
a significant population of workers in that area, or that his endeavor would offer the region or its 
population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. Without 
sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy 
resulting from the Petitioner's services would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar . Id. at 890. Accordingly , the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the 
first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that if a petitioner "is engaged in a STEM field of study or industry 
related to critical and emerging technologies, [he] may very likely qualify for a national interest waiver 
under [USCIS' policy guidelines]." It is important to note that being employed in a STEM field does 
not automatically show eligibility for a national interest waiver. Specifically, the STEM endeavor 
must have both substantial merit and national importance in respect to the first prong of Dhanasar. 
See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. Here, the 
Petitioner has shown the former, but not the latter. 
Many proposed endeavors that aim to advance STEM technologies and research, whether in academic 
or industry settings, not only have substantial merit in relation to U.S . science and technology interests, 
but also have sufficiently broad potential implications to demonstrate national importance. Id. In this 
case, the record does not suggest that the Petitioner intends to advance STEM technologies and 
research. While the Petitioner will likely offer valuable cybersecurity-related services to S-'s clients, 
we conclude the Petitioner has not established how his individual employment would affect STEM 
employment levels in his industry or the U.S. economy more broadly consistent with national 
importance. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the fust prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. It is unnecessary to analyze any remaining 
independent grounds when another is dispositive of the appeal. Therefore, we decline to reach whether 
he meets the other prongs under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
(1976) (finding it unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is 
dispositive of the appeal); 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) . 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5