dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information And Communications Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15775618 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 06, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an information and communications technology (ICT) consultant and professor, seeks 
second preference immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts 
or business, 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). After a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit 
and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements 
of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Texas Service Center Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified for classification as an 
advanced degree professional and that his proposed endeavor had substantial merit. However, the 
Director concluded that the evidence did not establish that the endeavor is of national importance, that 
the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor, or that a waiver of the required job offer, 
and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner offers a brief and reasserts that he qualifies for a national interest waiver. In 
these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 
291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification (emphasis added), as either an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this 
classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing 
is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
{A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interest waiver .... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to 
architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
2 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016).1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as matter of discretion 2, grant a national 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to 
waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 3 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The Petitioner did not provide a U.S. academic equivalency evaluation in accordance with 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i){A) to establish the U.S. equivalency of his foreign master's degree in 
communications management.4 However, the Director overlooked this lack of compliance with 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i){A) and reviewed the AACRAO EDGE database to determine that the 
Petitioner's foreign degree is comparable to a U.S. master's degree. As the database is a credible 
resource in this regard, we will not disturb the Director's finding concerning the Petitioner's degree. 5 
In Part 6 of the Form 1-140, "Basic Information About the Proposed Employment," the Petitioner 
listed his position as "ICT Consultant and Professor" and indicated that his position is full-time. He 
described the duties on the 1-140 as "[ a ]dvance wireless device regulation compliance through 
teaching, publications, consulting, and expansion of regulatory compliance business." On his ETA 
750 Part B, he claimed to hold three positions while also pursuing a Ph.D.: (1) owner of two Nigerian­
based com
1
an ies focused on the development ofl , ~ and ITC;6 (2) Assistant Professor of IT 
atl Universit~ lin Louisiana; and (3) AssistantProfessorof I CT at th0 
University (online). He did not identify how many hours per week he devotes to each position or to 
his Ph.D. studies. 
Although the initial filing contained significant information regarding the Petitioner's past work, in 
addition to some of his current work, he provided very little information concerning his proposed 
endeavor. From the initial filing alone, we understand the Petitioner's endeavor will involve applyinq 
his knowledge of ICT to classroom settings, continuing to serve as an Assistant Professor at~I --~J 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 T&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
2 See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a national interest wa iverto bed iscretionary in nature). 
3 See Dhanasar, 261 &N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on thesethreeprongs. 
4 The record includes a Canadian academic equivalency evaluation, which has no bearing on U.S. academic equivalency. 
The Petitioner should be prepared to address th is evidentiary shortcoming in any future filings. 
5 The record does not contain screenshots or printouts from the database to evidence the equivalency. However, the 
database states that a Master of Arts, Science, Engineering, Literature, Business Administration, Letters in the United 
Kingdom represents "attainment of a level of education comparable to a master's degree in the United States." For more 
info rm atio n, see https://www.aacrao.org/edge/ country/credentials/ credential/united-kin gdom/master-of-(ii)-a rts-sc ience­
en ginee rin g-1 itera tu re-b usin ess-admin istration-letters (last visited Aug. 6, 2021). 
6 Here, we presume the Petitioner means "ICT' and that "ITC" is a typographical error. The record also indicates that the 
Petitioner has a third company registered in the United States as an LLC. 
3 
University, and continuing his dual-faceted endeavor of wireless device regulatory compliance and 
expanding telecommunications in academia. The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) 
concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, among other eligibility requirements. The RFE 
informed the Petitioner that the evidence was insufficient to determine whether the endeavor had 
substantial merit and national importance and also noted that the Petitioner had not identified how 
much time he would devote to his various IT consulting, business operations, and teaching activities. 
In his RFE response, the Petitioner submitted a five-year plan containing additional information 
concerning his proposed endeavor. Specifically, he stated that he intends to use his "technology 
expertise and business acumen to reduce the friction of technology access and integration challenges 
within the State by starting a wireless product and ITE [information technology equipment] testing 
laboratory and obtain the necessary Federal government accreditation and licenses." He further stated 
that his five-year plan will "merge [his] skills and goals as an ICT consultant, entrepreneur, and 
assistant (or adjunct) professor." He intends to "engage in STEM [science, technology, engineering, 
mathematics]-based community training for inner city and under-served youngsters" which will 
involve devoting"a section of the wireless testing laboratory [to] optical technologytrainingforyoung 
technology and engineering professionals." 
The Petitioner stated that his work as an ICT consultant and entrepreneur is full-time and ongoing, and 
that his adjunct or assistant professor work would likely consist of one class per school year, for an 
average of six hours per week of work. Counsel stated that the Petitioner's professorial positions have 
always been part-time, thathiswork with his Nigerian-based companies has been part-time since 2015, 
and that the Petitioner "will serve first and foremost as a consultant, where his day-to-day work will 
be similar to that of an academic researcher." While helpful, "part-time" is a general term that does 
not adequately convey how much time he will devote to each of his activities. Counsel has noted that 
his teaching and Nigerian business operations work has been part-time in the past, but we have little 
information concerning the Petitioner's intended future allocations of time or how his day-to-day work 
will be similar to that of an academic researcher, particularly if he works full-time as both an ICT 
consultant and entrepreneur. We further note that the Petitioner did not account for the time he would 
devote to other claimed activities, such as publishing and ~his Ph.D. pr
1
oqr
1
m, nor did he 
specifically identify where he would be teaching, such as atl___J University, University, or 
another academic institution. In addition, the Petitioner did not identify how much time he would 
spend training students in STEM and optical technologies versus how much time he would spend 
offering compliance and regulatory consulting services to private businesses, nor can we determine 
whether the training is part of his teaching work or his entrepreneurial work. In Dhanasar, we held 
that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 
Id. at 889. As the record remains unclear as to how he will allocate his time, we conclude that he has 
not adequately identified his proposed endeavor, which inhibits a finding of eligibility in accordance 
with Dhanasar. 
The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit. For example, the record includes information concerning the importance of wireless 
technology, its applications in emerging markets, and the health and safety reasons for regulating it. 
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 determining 
national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which 
4 
the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake."7 See Dhanasar, 26 l&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. 
The Petitioner argues that his regulatory and compliance consulting allows businesses to improve their 
products so that they are eligible to be sold in other countries and that this has national importance 
because it increases U.S. competitiveness by enabling U.S. companies to broaden their markets. 
According to the Petitioner, his regulatory and compliance work will boost U.S. manufacturing 
because it will lead to the creation of more products that meet compliance standards. Further, he 
claims that the resulting boost in manufacturing has the potential to create U.S. manufacturing jobs. 
In addition, his business will provide technology jobs in Louisiana that will boost economic growth, 
while his teaching and training will stimulate entrepreneurial growth across all sectors in Louisiana. 
The Petitioner also claims that his research work will impact the health sector and insecure 
communities because of its application to telemedicine, electronic medical records, and mobile 
security for homes. 8 Overall, the Petitioner claims that his expertise will help increase the market of 
U.S. manufacturers, which benefits individual companies but also positively affects the U.S. gross 
domestic product (GDP) as a whole. 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's claims, he has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate 
them. The record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to extend beyond his 
own clients and students such that it wou Id impact the field or industry, the State of Louisiana, or the 
nation more broadly. The Petitioner has not shown that the benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from his entrepreneurial and consulting work would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. For instance, he has offered no 
analysis or numerical breakdowns to substantiate how his work is tied to increased positive economic 
activity or market expansion. The record does not indicate that his entrepreneurial and consulting 
business would be of a size or income level that would suggest the ability to generate substantial 
positive economic effects. While he claims to consult, provide recommendations, and offer directions 
to companies, he has not provided concrete examples of this work within the United States, as opposed 
to his past work performed outside the United States. Although he provided evidence of a Nigerian 
sales and installation license issued to his Nigerian-based business, he has not explained how such a 
license, which was issued to a foreign business, would enable him to personally offer regulatory and 
compliance consulting services in the United States. This may explain why the Petitioner has named 
7 While we acknowledge reports and articles on the benefits of technology to the economy, the fast-growing nature of the 
field, the opportunities in emerging markets, as well as the importance of regulatory and compliance work, these reports 
and articles are insufficient to substantiate the Petitioner's claims concerning the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor because they do not speak to the specific impact of the Petitioner's work. 
8 The record does not contain sufficient explanation of what the Petitioner has done to contribute in these areas. For 
instance, the evidence provided suggests that he developed software for electronic medical records, but we do not know 
what the softV1.are does, how it differs from other software used for the same purposes, or whether other entities use his 
software. We have little information about the impact the Petitioner's software has had on the field of healthcare as a 
whole. 
5 
few current or future consulting engagements, much less offered evidence to substantiate their 
existence.9 
To further illustrate, he has not identified the specific products upon which he plans to offerregulatory 
and compliance consulting, nor has he offered evidence of a direct connection between his services 
and a boost in his clients' product sales. Even if provided, we would have little basis with which to 
conclude that any of those sales are of such a magnitude as to affect manufacturing, jobs, the economy, 
or the GDP. Even if the Petitioner had established that his clients experienced a boost in sales as a 
result of his consulting services, this would not automatically translate to a manufacturing or job 
creation boost. Furthermore, the record does not show that any claimed manufacturing and job 
expansion would extend beyond the individual companies he assisted or that the expansion would 
remain in the United States, as opposed to being exported overseas. 
With respect to the Petitioner's teaching and training duties, we conclude that while these endeavors 
do have substantial merit, the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that they 
would impact the field of ICT, as opposed to being limited to the specific students, young 
professionals, and workplaces he serves. For example, the Petitioner has not included evidence of 
how many people he will teach and train, how many have secured or will secure entrepreneurial or 
technology industry jobs, or an analytical breakdown of the business growth that this work will cause 
such that it wou Id impact the economy of Louisiana or the nation. Here, the Petitioner's teaching and 
training roles may impact the students and young professionals where he works, but he has not 
established how these activities have a broader impact. Similarly, 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. 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner has presented at conferences and published articles in the past, 
he has not indicated that his ideas and teachings have been implemented such that the broader impact 
of his work is established, nor has he identified whether these activities are a part of his proposed 
endeavor.10 The Petitioner submitted numerous letters of recommendation in which the authors praise 
the Petitioner's qualifications, expertise, and work product.11 Most of the authors focus on the 
Petitioner's past work and appear to have little knowledge concerning his proposed endeavor.12 Many 
authors appear to assume that because the Petitioner's work benefitted his individual employers and 
clients, that these benefits accrue to the nation or the field as a whole. For instance,.___ ____ ____. 
offered an illustration of how the Petitioner's services increased his company's competitiveness. 
Without explaining how the Petitioner had any impact beyond this specific company,! I 
nevertheless concluded that the Petitioner is of weat value to the industry and the United States. 
Similarly, as the Directornoted,I ]stated that the Petitioner has "done pioneering work 
9 As stated in his RFE response, the Petitioner plans to obtain the necessary federal licensing and accreditation. The record 
indicates that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issues regulatory and compliance licenses but notthatthe 
Petitioner possesses one. 
10 We have insufficient evidence of the Petitioner's citation record at the time of filing the petition. In response to the 
RFE, the Petitioner submitted evidence that three of his articles published in 2017 were collectively cited a total of eig,t 
times. 
11 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence or each recommendation letter individually, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
12 We acknowledge the Petitioner submitted additional letters after the petition was filed and that the authors of the newly 
submitted letters demonstrate increased knowledge of the proposed endeavor. 
6 
with manufacturers in educating and lecturingthem" on certification and testing requirements, butD 
I I did not identify, for example, which or how many manufacturers benefitted, how the 
Petitioner's work differed from other regulatory and compliance consulting work, or whether others 
in the industry have adopted the Petitioner's methods. Therefore, the letter does not support a finding 
that the Petitioner's work had a pioneering impact on the field. Some of the authors abstractly 
reference the Petitioner's influence on the telemedicine field, but they do not explain the Petitioner's 
precise role in it or how the telemedicine field has changed because of the Petitioner's work. Overall, 
few authors substantiate their claims of the Petitioner's impact to the field or industry. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues thatthe Director selectively pulled phrases from the record but ignored 
the full context and data within the record. In our review, we conclude that the Director cited several 
discrete examples to illustrate the record's evidentiary shortcomings as a whole. The Petitioner must 
support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. 369,376 {AAO 2010). The Petitioner has not met his burden in this regard. Because the 
documentation in the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national 
importance as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose.13 
Ill. 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, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
13 Because the identified reasons ford ismissal are dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the arguments regarding prongs two andthreeof the Dhanasar framework. 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 of L-A-C-, 26 I &N Dec. 516,526 n.7 {BIA2015) (declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
7