dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cybersecurity

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 26, 2024 In Re: 30562551 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , an information technology (IT) engineer specializing in cybersecurity, 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 Nebraska 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 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, in part, that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. The record supports that conclusion. 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 stated that she intended to operate a business providing cybersecurity services in the 
United States. The Petitioner initially provided the following in a cover letter concerning the merit 
and national importance of her proposed endeavor ( quoted as written): 
[The Petitioner] looks forward on focusing on this subject that is crucial for U.S. -
Development, consulting, and training services to the private and public sectors 
pertaining to cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure Control Systems. She is 
uniquely qualified to contribute to U.S. Cybersecurity infrastructure based on her track 
record of success in the field and will ultimately provide a substantial benefit for 
Critical Infrastructure Control System within the U.S. either as a Cybersecurity 
consultant or specialist for private or public needs. [Emphasis in the original.] 
The Director concluded the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor had substantial 
merit or national importance. Review of the record shows that the Petitioner intended to provide 
consultancy services to clients in several business sectors in order to strengthen the cybersecurity 
standing of private and public entities in the United States. As such, we conclude that the Petitioner's 
endeavor has substantial merit. However, for the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director 
that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her endeavor in order 
to establish her 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 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
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 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that the Director erred in his application of Matter 
ofKatigbak 2 and his assessment of whether the Petitioner met eligibility requirements. This assertion 
refers to the Director's determination that the Petitioner's business plan and two letters of support­
which were submitted in response to a request for evidence (RFE) and post-date the filing date of the 
petition-were not relevant since they did not exist as of the date the petition was filed. The Director 
characterized the documents as a "new set of facts," which "cannot be considered as it relates to the 
instant petition, since [the documents] were not in existence at the time of filing." The Petitioner's 
brief provides the following: 
In contrast [to Katigbak], [the Petitioner's] case does not involve a reassessment of 
qualifications or eligibility established at the time of filing, but [is based] on the 
substantial merit and national importance of [her] proposed endeavor. The business 
plan and the letters ofrecommendation submitted are not a "new set of facts" generated 
post-filing but are rather elucidations and affirmations of preexistent ideas, plans, and 
achievements related to [her] field of endeavor, adequately introduced and explained 
at the time of the initial ft ling. 
Review of the record reflects that the cover letter submitted with the Petitioner's initial evidence 
discussed the importance of cybersecurity within information systems and emphasized the Petitioner's 
qualifications to provide IT services. The initial evidence did not definitively describe the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor, including her role either working for a company, a public entity, or providing 
services through the operation of her own business. Due to the initial ambiguity of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor, we do not consider the date of the business plan to be a factor in an analysis of her 
eligibility. Therefore, we will consider the Petitioner's business plan as evidence submitted in support 
of her proposed endeavor. In addition, we note that while two of the recommendation letters post-date 
the petition's filing date, they refer to the Petitioner's experience prior to the filing date; as such, they 
may be considered. 
Further, the business plan is supported by industry reports and news articles discussing the significance 
of managing and improving cybersecurity and the U.S. jobs market. While this material provides 
information about the Petitioner's intended field of endeavor, neither this documentation, the 
Petitioner's business plan, nor the letters of support sufficiently demonstrate how the Petitioner's plan 
to operate a cybersecurity consultancy company will have a potential prospective impact of national 
importance. 
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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 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 
2 See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971) (stating that individuals seeking employment-based 
immigration classifications must possess the necessmy qualifications as of the filing date of the visa petition). 
3 
evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we 
look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. 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. Id. at 893. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the submitted evidence establishes the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor. The cover letter provided in response to the RFE provided the following: 
[The] Petitioner's proposed endeavor in the field of cybersecurity has significant global 
and national economic implications. As the world becomes more technologically 
interdependent and interconnected, the significance of cybersecurity cannot be 
exaggerated. 
The Petitioner's business plan describes the services that she plans to provide through her consultancy 
business as follows (quoted as written): 
The service provides information, evaluation, detection, prevention, as well as tools to 
ensure confidentiality, integrity of information and availability through official digital 
applications for its managements. 
The customers, as well as their own customers, if applicable, will have control of the 
information they store in their system and ensure attacks by vulnerability, which can 
cause an App to stop working temporarily or permanently. 
[The company's] value acquires greater weight due to the experience in the area of 
diagnosis and design in the proposal of appropriate solutions according to each case, 
being able to coordinate the proposal presented so that the solutions achieve their 
effectiveness or so that the client can apply them properly on their own. 
As a preliminary matter, we observe that both the business plan and letters of support emphasize the 
Petitioner's experience and how her expertise will directly benefit the company. 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 ofDhanasar, but to the second. 3 
While the business plan offers an overview of the services the Petitioner intends to provide, its 
argument for the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor relies on the overall importance of 
3 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. We note that the record does not include-and the Petitioner does not reference-experience forming or 
operating a business, nor does any of the evidence of record contemplate funding to finance the business. A lack of 
experience previously engaging in a business venture and the absence of financial resources to operate the business are 
relevant to whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor can credibly be undertaken or carried out within a realistic 
timeframe that will benefit the United States. These considerations are essential to an assessment of the proposed 
endeavor's potential prospective impact. While the ultimate goal of a proposed endeavor may, for example, enhance 
societal welfare, we must consider the endeavor's significant potential to prospectively do so. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F .5(D)( l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
4 
robust cybersecurity practices in a technologically dependent world. The Petitioner has not provided 
independent evidence or otherwise explained how her company would have a prospective national 
impact on the field of cybersecurity or an economy of any scale. For example, the business plan 
anticipates hiring 29 individuals by the conclusion of its second quarter of operation and generating a 
net revenue of $111,272.00. The plan does not, however, provide the origins of these calculations, 
nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence sufficient to demonstrate that it is likely the 
company will have a positive national impact economically or within the field. A petitioner must 
support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the nation. Specifically, she 
has not shown that her business stands to provide substantial economic benefits to any particular 
locality or to the United States overall. While the business plan explained in general terms that her 
company's services would help other companies succeed, and in turn benefit the U.S. economy, that 
reasoning was not based on any objective evidence related to her specific proposed endeavor. As 
such, the business plan does not demonstrate that the prospective benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
It is not clear how a business of the size and scope described in the business plan would positively 
impact a given region in which either her employees or clients are located. The Petitioner has not 
provided evidence to show that she would employ a significant population of workers in a particular 
region, nor has she shown that her proposed endeavor would offer a region or its population substantial 
economic benefits through employment levels, business activity, or tax revenue. Neither the business 
plan nor the remaining evidence in the record demonstrate that the Petitioner's endeavor to operate a 
consultancy company rises to the level of national importance. The Petitioner has not demonstrated 
the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
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, she has not 
established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. The petition will remain denied. 
5 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6