dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Data Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 02, 2024 InRe : 31491353 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a data scientist, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national 
interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 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 that the record did not 
demonstrate the Petitioner merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&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. 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 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 certain requirements are met. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for 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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 at 889 , provides the framework for 
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). 
adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of 
discretion, 2 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. 
We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner established his eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. Next, we look to the first 
Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance. This prong focuses on the specific 
endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake and 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. In the instant matter, the 
Director properly concluded that the proposed endeavor, aiming to improve small business operations 
through data analysis, has substantial merit. 
The Petitioner intends to work as a Chief Executive Officer of to provide 
services related to data science and business intelligence. The endeavor seeks to meaningfully help 
small businesses thrive in the digital market, ensuring they develop their businesses with digital 
integration and data security. On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director's decision lacks analysis 
regarding the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and erred in denying solely 
on this prong of the Dhanasar analysis. 
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. Although the Petitioner 
contends that the business plan discussed the importance small businesses play in the economy 
demonstrated by the Biden-Harris administration support for small and medium sized businesses, as 
well as the industry growth in data analytics, the matter here is not whether these initiatives, as well 
as the topics of data analytics or software industry experts, or similarly related subjects, are nationally 
important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed 
endeavor of providing his services as a data scientist through his company in the I 
Massachusetts area. 
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. 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
Circuit Court in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
I 
at 890. The Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor will "make a greatly needed contributions 
to the United States, as professionals with his expertise and knowledge are in dire need." He asserts 
that, "69% of employers in the United States struggled to fill positions in 2020 and that that tech 
positions are among the top 10 hardest roles to fill." However, the alleged shortage of occupations or 
occupational skills does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar 
framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department 
of Labor through the labor certification process. 
Another means to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national 
importance requirement, is to look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the 
work. Id. at 889. The Petitioner asserts will be important in the "rescue and 
growth of other enterprises that may be facing difficulties in reaching their own clientele." This does 
not demonstrate how his business would largely influence the data analytics or business field to the 
level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. The record lacks supporting documentation to show how his endeavor sufficiently extends 
beyond his prospective clients or employees, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at 
a level commensurate with national importance. 
Further, the Petitioner presented a letter from Dr. I Iat the who 
found the Petitioner's initial proposed endeavor has national importance. However, the letter discusses 
the importance of data analytics in general explaining that the Petitioner's company will, "act in the 
field of data science and business intelligence and hire qualified personnel to provide American 
companies with data to ensure the success of their business and help them with decision-making." 
This recommendation lacks a clear explanation of the Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor. In 
addition, the letter does not explain how the Petitioner's particular services would have broader 
implications for our country or how the proposed business would have an impact consistent with 
national importance. 
Similarly, the Petitioner also contends that the submission of his letters ofrecommendation discussed 
the impact of his work in the field. Although the letters discuss the Petitioner's particular services that 
he performed on each project, the letters do not show the far-reaching impact of the Petitioner's work, 
only the limited influence on his specific clients, who employ him for his services. Moreover, the 
letters cover the Petitioner's prior work and accomplishments and relate more to the second prong 
rather than the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner also contends that his endeavor falls within a STEM (science, technology, engineering, 
or mathematics) profession and that "will help small and medium-sized 
companies improve their operations by identifying the data-analytics problems that offer the greatest 
opportunities to organizations and determining the correct data sets and variables, providing business 
intelligence reports and insights and helping them achieve success and long-term goals." 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. 3 While the 
3 
proposed endeavor for example, may have substantial merit in relation to U.S. business interests and 
in sharing data analytics knowledge, such activities, by themselves, generally are not indicative of an 
impact in the STEM field more broadly, and therefore generally would not establish their national 
importance. 4 Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his endeavor aims to advance STEM technologies 
and research or has broad implications other than providing his limited professional services by 
working within a STEM profession. 
Finally, while he provided a business plan for the proposed company, the Petitioner did not present 
any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how the business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible 
or plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. Although the business plan forecasts a net worth from $81K in year 
1 to $555K in year 5, the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the 
benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Similarly, even though the business plan claims the 
creation of 7 positions in year 1 and 24 positions in year 5, as well as 86 indirect jobs, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate the relevance of these numbers and show that such future staffing levels would 
provide substantial economic benefits to thel IMassachusetts region or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner, for instance, did not 
establish that such employment figures would utilize a significant population of workers in the area or 
would substantially impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. For all 
these reasons, the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its 
prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising 
to the level of having national importance or that it would offer substantial positive economic effects. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis ofthe Petitioner's eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 5 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 Id. 
5 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
4