dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Security

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24844899 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 7, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an information security specialist, 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion . 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 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree . Id. 
Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act as well as any 
occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement 
for entry into the occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish 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 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an information security specialist who proposed to work in the United States as a 
consultant in the fields of information technology and cybersecurity. He holds the foreign equivalent 
of a U.S. bachelor's degree in information systems and has worked in the field of information 
technology for more than 14 years. The Director determined that he is eligible for the EB-2 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and we agree. The 
remaining issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner is eligible or otherwise merits a waiver of that 
classification's job offer requirement. We conclude that he is not. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 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. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance. The Petitioner states that he intends to "work with and 
contribute towards software engineering and architecture, information security, and strategic planning 
in the United States, improving the information technology sector by taking challenging roles in 
information technology, helping companies in digital transformation and reinvention, helping to 
identify the products and services that differentiate the company from its competitors, and applying 
his information technology knowledge to execute the strategy." 
The Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter from a professor of computer science, information 
systems, and cybersecurity at I I University. The professor states that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor to provide his services in the information technology industry has substantial 
benefits for the United States' information technology sector because the U.S. information 
infrastructure, ranging from telecommunications to computer networks, is the foundation for much of 
the business, military, and civilian activity, because the United States is the largest tech market in the 
world, and because information technology impacts the U.S. economy through electronic commerce. 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
We conclude that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit based on his claim that his 
endeavor aims to advance information technology initiatives and further national security interests and 
U.S. competitiveness in the information technology sector. 
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 addition, we 
indicated 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. 
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. At the time of filing 
his petition, the Petitioner was working as the director of information security at s-i I 
The Petitioner currently works as the vice president of information security at I 
Corporation. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that "as an information technology consultant and an 
information security specialist who will contribute toward optimizing processes, reducing costs, risks, 
and losses, increasing productivity, enhancing business intelligence, and helping companies operate 
more efficiently, his undertaking will spur innovation, create new jobs, new industries, and new 
opportunities for Americans." While we acknowledge the Petitioner's claims, he has not provided 
evidence to substantiate them. He has not provided documentary evidence that his proposed job duties 
as an information technology consultant and an information security specialist would impact the fields 
of information technology and cybersecurity more broadly rather than benefiting his employer or their 
clients. Without sufficient documentary evidence of their broader impact, the Petitioner's proposed 
employment does not meet the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
The Petitioner submitted an expert opm10n letter from a professor of electrical and computer 
engineering at I I University. The professor states that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to 
provide services as an information security consultant is important to the United States because "it 
helps grow the U.S. economy by allowing businesses to expand, creating more jobs for U.S. workers, 
reducing losses due to cybercrime, and enhancing the social welfare for U.S. citizens." Here, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employee U.S. 
workers or otherwise offers "substantial positive economic effects" for our nation contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. For example, he has not offered sufficient evidence that his consulting services 
would enable his employer to employ a significant population of workers in an economically 
depressed area or that his endeavor would offer a particular U.S. region or its population a substantial 
economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated 
that any increase in the company's revenue attributable to his consulting services stands to 
substantially affect economic activity regionally or nationally. Therefore, the Petitioner's proposed 
work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Furthermore, to support claims regarding the positive impacts of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner 
made a reference to presidential executive orders on "Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration 
3 
Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans" and "Improving the 
Nation's Cybersecurity." The Petitioner also made a reference to "Biden-Harris Administration 
Actions to Attract STEM Talent and Strengthen our Economy and Competitiveness." In addition, the 
Petitioner states that in 2020, the U.S. National Security Council developed the National Strategy for 
Critical and Emerging Technologies to obtain and retain global superiority in world-changing 
emerging technologies and that the strategy incorporates a list of Critical and Emerging Technologies, 
which are a subset of advanced technologies that are potentially significant to U.S. national security. 
The Petitioner further states that the list includes technologies, such as advanced computing ( data 
storage, computing architectures, data processing, and analysis techniques) and communication and 
networking technologies (network security), all of which the Petitioner will impact though his 
proposed endeavor. While the documents indicate the importance of technology and cybersecurity to 
maintain and improve U.S. competitiveness and national security, they do not specifically show the 
government's interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The Petitioner has not otherwise 
provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of his proposed 
endeavor rises to the level of national importance. As such, the record does not sufficiently 
demonstrate the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his 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 of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Although the Petitioner has shown that he is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
and that his proposed endeavor to work in the United States as a consultant in the fields of information 
technology and cybersecurity has substantial merit, he has not shown that his proposed endeavor has 
national importance. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the 
evidence that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4