dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cybersecurity

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 14, 2024 In Re: 34859055 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 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's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 I&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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. 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). 
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, 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional, but failed to 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons set 
forth below, we agree that the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar framework and dismiss the appeal. 
The first Dhanasar 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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
The Petitioner intends to work in the United States as an information security analyst to provide 
cybersecurity solutions to help businesses protect their digital assets and optimize their business 
operations. According to the Petitioner, he intends to focus on consulting, auditing, designing, 
implementing, and operating information security management systems and elevating the information 
security standards of U.S. companies. Specifically, in his professional plan, the Petitioner asserted 
that he would monitor security controls to identify vulnerabilities and safeguard digital files, and 
investigate information security breaches in order to make informed recommendations for information 
security enhancements. Additionally, he intends to ensure compliance with regulatory frameworks, 
and conduct assessments of organizations' information security policies, procedures, and technical 
safeguards to ensure compliance with regulatory mandates surrounding the security of financial 
transactions. Through this work he aims to enhance efficiency, reliability, and effectiveness of 
safeguarding data and systems and reducing data breaches and cyber threats, which he claims will lead 
to significant social and economic advantages. 
In support of his endeavor, the Petitioner submitted two professional plans, a personal statement, 
articles and industry reports on the cybersecurity industry and prevalence of data breaches, 
government fact sheets on the national cybersecurity strategies, the use of artificial intelligence in 
cybersecurity, an expert opinion letter, as well as several letters of recommendation. The Petitioner 
also cited to several additional industry articles, reports, and government publications providing 
statistics on data breaches and the economic and social impact of data breaches. 2 
1 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 USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
2 
Upon review of the complete record, the Director concluded that, while the Petitioner established the 
substantial merit of his endeavor, the Petitioner had not shown that his work would rise to the level of 
national importance contemplated in Dhanasar. Specifically, the Director determined that the record 
did not show his work would result in broader implications to his field, beyond the benefits to his 
prospective employers or clients. And the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not established 
that his endeavor would result in substantial economic effects contemplated in Dhanasar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally disagrees the Director's conclusions, and asserts that the Director 
did not properly consider the evidence in the record establishing his eligibility for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence 
establishes the broader implications of his endeavor and its contributions to national security and the 
U.S. economy. Notably, however, the Petitioner does not point to specific examples of how the 
Director erred in their analysis of the evidence. The reason for filing an appeal is to provide an affected 
party with the means to remedy what they perceive as an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact within a decision in a previous proceeding. 3 By presenting only general disagreement with the 
Director's decision, without identifying the specific aspects of the denial he considers to be incorrect, 
the Petitioner has failed to sufficiently identify the basis for his appeal. 4 Nevertheless, we have 
reviewed the record and agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established the national 
importance of his endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the record does not establish, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance. The Petitioner claims on 
appeal that his endeavor is designed to bolster the cybersecurity framework of the United States. 
Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that, by providing high-level cybersecurity solutions and fortifying 
the security infrastructure of his prospective clients' businesses, he will significantly reduce the risk 
of cyberattacks and service disruptions. Accordingly, the Petitioner asserts that his endeavor "is 
crucial for preserving national assets, including government data, defense systems, intellectual 
property, financial and transactional systems, and essential infrastructure." However, the Petitioner 
does not explain how the services he will provide to his prospective employer(s) or customers would 
result in broader implications to his field. Instead, he primarily relies on the importance of the 
cybersecurity occupation and industry rather than the prospective impact of his specific endeavor. 
But in Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We 
therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting 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. 
3 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
4 Matter of Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. 354, 354-55 (BIA 1986). 
3 
Although the Petitioner's statements in the record reflect his intention to provide valuable services to 
his future employer(s) and customers, the record does not support his assertions that his work will 
result in broader implications to the field, beyond the potential benefits to his immediate employer(s) 
or customers. While he asserts, for example, that through his work he will develop advanced payment 
security systems, and robust fraud detection algorithms to enhance security and protect businesses 
from financial losses, he has not provided details or evidence regarding these systems or explained 
whether these systems or algorithms would lead to national or global implications within his field 
commensurate with national importance, or otherwise could be analogous to the "medical advances" 
contemplated in Dhanasar. See Dhanasar at 889. The Petitioner has not shown, for example, that 
any security systems or standards that he develops, even if adopted and used by his employer(s) or 
customers, would otherwise lead to broader implications to the field. Generalized conclusory 
statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See e.g., 1756, 
Inc. v. US. 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). 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. Dhanasar at 893. Here too, the record does not show that 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective employer(s) 
or customers to impact his field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
We have also reviewed the articles, industry reports, and government publications relating to data 
breaches and the cybersecurity field, as well as the governmental interest in ensuring data security, 
and conclude that they do not establish the national importance of the Beneficiary's endeavor. The 
articles in the record do not discuss his specific work, or otherwise establish how his work will result 
in broader implications to the industry. Instead, this evidence supports the endeavor's substantial 
merit. Similarly, we conclude that the Petitioner's assertions regarding a claimed shortage in his field 
do not establish the national importance of his specific endeavor. The national interest waiver is not 
intended to address labor shortages. A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the 
work of an individual cybersecurity professional nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent 
decision. 
Likewise, while we have reviewed the expert opinion letter in the record, we conclude it provides little 
probative value in establishing the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. In their 
letter, Dr. C-F- states that the Petitioner's work would significantly contribute to national efforts to 
improve cybersecurity resilience and readiness, but the writer does not explain how his work would 
impact these initiatives on a broader scale beyond the direct benefits to his employers or customers, 
and instead relies on the cumulative impact of the cybersecurity field and the work of cybersecurity 
professionals when discussing the importance of the proposed endeavor. USCIS may, in its discretion, 
use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources 
submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 
1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a 
noncitizen's eligibility. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 
2011) ( discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, 
reliability, and the overall probative value). 
4 
The record also does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor "has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area." See Dhanasar at 890. The Petitioner claims that his work will significantly 
contribute to the U.S. economy by safeguarding fmancial transactions, reducing fmancial losses 
caused by cyber-attacks, and protecting sensitive information. But the Petitioner's economic claims 
primarily rely on the cumulative economic benefits of the cybersecurity industry rather than 
establishing how his endeavor will result in the substantial economic benefits contemplated in 
Dhanasar . Id. The Petitioner has not shown, for example, how any protections provided to his 
employers and customers would result in substantial economic effects commensurate with national 
importance. Although any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact a local 
economy, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information or evidence regarding the economic 
impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work (as opposed to the general economic impact 
of the industry). 
And we acknowledge the Petitioner's reference to USCIS policy recognizing the importance of STEM 
fields and the essential role of persons with advanced STEM degrees in fostering this progress, 5 but 
the Petitioner has not shown that his endeavor will foster progress in STEM technologies or result in 
broader implications to his field. We recognize the value of such technological innovations and 
importance of STEM related professions; however, merely working in an important field is insufficient 
to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
Likewise, while we recognize that the Petitioner has had a successful career and has executed several 
critical projects for his former employers, a petitioner's expertise and record of success are 
considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor 
to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. We conclude that he has not. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of 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. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, F.5(D)(2). 
5