dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electronic And Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 18, 2024 In Re: 31318523 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an electronic and civil engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not established eligibility for 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 pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § I 03 .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. 
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: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
• 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. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies 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 Director concluded the record did not establish that the proposed endeavor of providing 
information technology consulting services has national importance, as required under the first prong 
of Dhanasar. After a careful review of the entire record, we agree. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner submitted a "proposed endeavor" statement proposing to offer 
"Information Technology (IT) consulting services specialized in the implementation of cutting-edge 
technology for U.S. small businesses." In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
submitted an updated "proposed endeavor statement," an updated "personal statement," and business plan 
indicating that he intends to serve as the chief executive officer for a new information technology 
consulting company. The company, ___________ will be based in __ 
California, targeting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The Petitioner stated that the 
company's contributions will include: 
• minimize the barriers to technological development and advancements for startups and SMEs; 
• support SMEs that are foundational to broader economic development; 
• fulfill the increasing demand for software consulting services in the U.S.; and 
• support the economy and technological competitiveness by ameliorating a shortage of STEM 
professionals nationwide. 
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. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director determined that although the proposed endeavor had substantial merit, the Petitioner 
provided insufficient evidence to establish the proposed endeavor's national importance. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner had not shown that his proposed endeavor would have significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers, would offer substantial positive economic effects for the United States, would 
have broader implications for the Petitioner's field, or that the benefits to the national economy resulting 
from the proposed endeavor would reach a level contemplated by the Dhanasar framework. On appeal, 
the Petitioner submits a brief which contends that the previously submitted evidence in the record 
demonstrated that the Petitioner meets all three prongs under the Dhanasar framework and merits a 
discretionary waiver of the job offer, and thus the labor certification, in the national interest. 
2 
The Petitioner cites to articles and reports discussing a wide variety of topics including industry trends 
in the information technology industry and the value of SMEs as drivers of U.S. new business growth. 
This evidence supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed work as a business 
owner and chief operating executive in the information technology consulting services sector has 
substantial merit. The matter here is not whether these topics of information technology, digital 
transformation, artificial intelligence, software consulting, or similarly related subjects, are nationally 
important. In evaluating 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" and its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. General claims about the growth of the information technology 
services industry and the importance of SMEs in the United States do not help establish that the 
Petitioner's specific endeavor has the potential to impact the U.S. economy, or the information 
technology industry on a scale commensurate with national importance. Therefore, while we recognize 
the role of information technology consultants in assisting businesses to automate their operations, 
achieve digital transformation, improve service delivery, and improve their market competitiveness, 
the Petitioner's intent to work in this field alone is not sufficient to establish the national importance 
of his specific proposed endeavor. 
The evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific undertaking stands to have an impact 
beyond the organization and clients he would serve, or that his proposed work would otherwise have 
broader implications for the information technology industry or initiatives. 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. 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. Here, the record does not show through 
supporting documentation how his specific company that provides information technology consulting 
services stands to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients to impact the industry or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. For example, he does not 
claim, and the record does not establish, that he plans to introduce novel methodologies or 
technological advancements that may be disseminated to or adopted by others operating in the field or 
industry, or otherwise articulate how he will contribute to research and development of our nation's 
information technology field. 
The Petitioner also contends that his endeavor falls within a STEM (science, technology, engineering, 
or mathematics) profession. With respect to the first prong, as in all cases, the evidence must 
demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. 2 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. Here, the 
Petitioner has not shown that his endeavor aims to advance STEM technologies and research or has 
broad implications rather than providing his limited professional services by working within a STEM 
profession. 
2 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
3 
The evidence and argument the Petitioner introduced into the record does not help him carry his 
burdens of production and persuasion. In support of his claim that he can satisfy the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework, the Petitioner provided a personal professional statement, a national 
importance statement, a proposed endeavor statement, letters of recommendation, and a business plan 
for his proposed company. 3 The letters of recommendation containing testimonials of the services the 
Petitioner performed do not describe how the benefits they have received connect to broader 
implications rising to national importance or any nationally important economic impact. The 
Petitioner also submitted an expert opinion letter from Dr.I Ia professor of computer 
science and information systems at _______ users may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinion statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted 
in evidence as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r 1988). 
However, users is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a foreign 
national' s eligibility. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter of D-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). Here, much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance 
and probative value with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In 
addressing the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the author describes the U.S. information 
technology industry and its importance on small businesses and the U.S. economy. It describes how 
the information technology industry supports national initiatives, and that the Petitioner's experience 
makes him capable to provide information technology consulting services to small businesses. Instead 
of focusing on the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor having a prospective impact in the field of 
information technology, the opinion focuses on the importance of the industry and how the Petitioner's 
experience as an information technology consultant would be beneficial to the United States. The 
letter therefore does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed U.S. 
work. The letter does not contain sufficient information and explanation of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's 
specific proposed work in information technology offers broader implications in his field or substantial 
positive economic effects for our nation that rise to the level of national importance. 
Further, 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. The Petitioner provided a business plan that includes industry and market analyses, 
financial forecasts and projections, and a description of his information technology consulting 
company's proposed services and staffing. The business plan projects that the company would hire 
15 foll-time employees and 16 independent contractors in the first five years of operations and generate 
cumulative revenues of$6.987 million by the end of its fifth year. However, the plan does not provide 
sufficient detail of the basis for these projections, or adequately explain how these sales and staffing 
targets will be realized. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Additionally, the record does not support that the direct creation of 15 additional jobs in this sector or 
the expected tax revenue generated by the company will have a substantial economic benefit 
commensurate with the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
3 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
While the Petitioner submitted industry data showing that the information technology services industry 
is a high growth sector and a significant contributor to the U.S. economy, he has not demonstrated 
how a business that expects to hire 15 employees and generate $6.987 million over five years will 
have substantial positive economic effects on this sector, which, according to a submitted overview of 
the industry, has an estimated direct economic impact of $2 trillion on the national economy and 
employs over 9.1 million workers. 
The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor "aligns with the locations of some of the 
underprivileged areas and communities that have high poverty rates and are considered to be in 
Historically Underutilized Zones (HUBZone )" and will "seek to serve and generate direct and indirect 
employment opportunities in underserved communities." However, the Petitioner has not offered 
sufficient evidence that his business will be located in a HUBZone. Further, he did not indicate that 
his endeavor would participate in the HUBZone program or that it would be eligible to do so. 4 While 
it appears that the Petitioner may have intended to equate a designated HUBZone with an 
"economically depressed area," the record does not support a conclusion that this is an equitable 
comparison. The Petitioner has not otherwise claimed or provided evidence that the area where his 
company will operate is economically depressed, that it 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, business activity, or related tax revenue. While the 
intention is meritorious, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support these claims. 
The Petitioner's claims of his proposed endeavor's economic impact have not been established through 
independent and objective evidence. The Petitioner's statements are not sufficient to demonstrate his 
endeavor has the potential to provide these benefits to the United States. The Petitioner must support 
his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not met his burden to establish that he meets the first 
prong of the Dhanasar national interest framework. Because this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the remaining arguments concerning eligibility under 
the remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ('courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate 
issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 Under the HUBZone program, the U.S. government seeks to fuel small business growth in historically underutilized 
business zones, with a goal of annually awarding at least 3 % of federal contract dollars to HUB Zone-certified companies 
annually. See "HUBZone Program," https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistanceprograms/hubzone 
program. 
5