dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Security

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 12, 2024 In Re: 32458401 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an information security analyst, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability, as 
well as a discretionary national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 
classification. 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 Petitioner does not 
qualify for the EB-2 classification based on exceptional ability or as an advanced degree professional, 
and the record also did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. This matter is now before us on appeal, which we review de novo. 
Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Petitioners bear the burden of 
establishing eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
To be eligible for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first establish eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 visa classification, as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional 
ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(A), (B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(l). 1 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they warrant 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 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions, which states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 2 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner establishes that: (1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) they are well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and (3) on balance, 
waiving the job offer and thus labor certification requirements would benefit the United States. Id. 
1 The Petitioner sought classification below only based on exceptional ability. He does not assert on appeal, and the record 
does not show, he is an advanced degree professional for EB-2 classification purposes. This issue thus is not before us. 
See, e.g., Matter of Garcia, 28 I&N Dec. 693, 693 n.l (BIA 2023) (holding that issues not raised on appeal are waived); 
Matter ofJ-Y-C-, 24 I&N Dec. 260, 261 n. l (BIA 2007) (noting that matters not raised previously are waived on appeal). 
2 See, e.g., Brasil v. DHS, 28 F .4th 1189 (11th Cir. 2022) ( concluding that the national interest waiver determination is 
nonreviewable and discretionary in nature) . 
The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a person of exceptional ability, which requires him to first 
satisfy at least half of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Although the Director found that 
he met the minimum regulatory criteria, the Director concluded, upon a final merits assessment, the 
Petitioner did not establish exceptional ability because the record did not show a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the information technology (IT) security industry. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "exceptional ability"); see also 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, 
https ://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part- f-chapter-2 ( discussing a two-part framework 
for determining exceptional ability). 
The remaining issue on appeal is whether he warrants a discretionary national interest waiver under 
the Dhanasar framework, the first prong of which focuses on substantial merit and national importance 
of the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. Id. 
The Director found that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and he is 
well-positioned to advance his endeavor, the record did not establish that it is of national importance 
and therefore did not meet Dhanasar' s first prong. We conclude that the evidence does not establish 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
The Petitioner intends to continue to work as an information security analyst and manager providing 
various services, including identifying and reducing security risks, developing and managing 
cybersecurity systems, and providing training on related topics, to all potential customers. The 
Petitioner does not submit any new evidence on appeal but alleges that the Director failed to consider 
all relevant evidence in evaluating the claimed national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers, have substantial positive economic impact, broadly impact the 
industry beyond his career, or otherwise have broader economic or societal implications rising to the 
level of national importance. See id. at 889-90. In reasserting that his proposed endeavor has national 
importance, the Petitioner primarily reiterates his experience and expertise in the IT field, as indicated 
in his initial and updated "professional plans," resume, as well as an expert letter and other support 
letters from colleagues, former employers, and prospective recruiters. He also continues to rely on 
general industry reports and articles and government initiatives addressing the need for improving the 
U.S. cybersecurity, and claims that his endeavor will contribute to "the national importance of 
bolstering cybersecurity across companies of all sizes and industries." Given the market potential and 
the importance of the field as indicated in the industry reports and the government initiatives, he avers 
that his expertise and increasing demand for well-qualified IT security analysts and managers ideally 
position him for success that will have broader national implications. However, the referenced 
evidence focuses on the Petitioner's experience and expertise and relate to Dhanasar' s second prong, 
which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. For assessing 
the national importance of a proposed endeavor under Dhanasar' s first prong, we look to its "potential 
prospective impact." Id. at 889. Thus, as relevant here, we assess whether the specific endeavor he 
proposes to undertake has broader national significance, rather than his profession or the entire 
industry in which he proposes to engage based on his qualifications. Id. We acknowledge the 
2 
Petitioner's expertise, past accomplishments, and willingness to continue to work in several 
specialized areas of the cybersecurity field. However, although the proposed work as an information 
security analyst and manager could have a positive impact on his future career and clients, the 
Petitioner has not persuasively explained, and the record does not demonstrate, how his work in the 
stated positions would have broader impact on the cybersecurity services industry as a whole and 
U.S. economy as he claims, beyond his own career, potential employers, and their future customers. 
The record also does not indicate that he specifically possesses and offers a unique set of novel, 
innovative skills that were or would be adopted by the industry. 
The record, for instance, does not show that the proposed endeavor would have "significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers" or "substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area," which may indicate national importance. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The two professional plans generally state that the Petitioner will make a significant economic 
contribution to the United States by providing exceptional and dedicated services that would protect 
various systems from security vulnerabilities and ensuring safe cybemetwork environment for his 
clients. However, the Petitioner does not claim, and the record does not include any evidence 
specifically indicating that he will operate his own business or hire U.S. workers. Further, other than 
asserting that his proposed work as an information security analyst and manager will significantly 
contribute to the U.S. economy and the industry, the Petitioner does not provide any detailed 
information as to what specific economic benefits his proposed endeavor would generate and how 
they would be accomplished, such as evidence-based projected revenue, projected employment 
numbers, or any other economic or societal benefits directly or indirectly attributable to his endeavor. 
Moreover, he does not claim, and the record does not show, his endeavor would have positive impact 
in economically depressed areas. Even if the Petitioner were to achieve success by working for 
multiple IT entities with many clients, as he did in Brazil, he does not specify, and the record does not 
otherwise demonstrate, how being a comparably successful information security analyst and manager 
in the United States would rise to the level of national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
The Petitioner also asserts that he will provide "multifaceted" trainings to those already working in, 
or interested in joining, the industry and participate in speaking events to further share his knowledge. 
However, the record does not include any specific probative evidence as to how his proposed 
educational activities would broadly benefit cybersecurity education. Id. at 893 (holding that the 
noncitizen's work as a science teacher, while it was found to have substantial merit, did not qualify 
him under the first prong because the evidence did not establish how the proposed teaching work 
would impact science education more broadly). 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's expertise and aspirations to continue to work as an information 
security analyst and manager, he has not established with specific, probative evidence that his 
proposed work has national or industry-wide implications, beyond his own career and future clients. 
See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76 (holding that in reviewing the record we consider not 
only the quantity, but also the quality, including relevance and probative value, of the evidence). 
Considering the foregoing, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
national importance and he therefore has not met Dhanasar's first prong. 
As the identified basis for denial, the Petitioner's inability to satisfy Dhanasar' s first prong, is 
dispositive of this appeal, we decline to reach the remaining appeal arguments as to his underlying 
3 
eligibility for EB-2 classification based on exceptional ability and for the national interest waiver 
under the third prong of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
(stating that agencies are not required to reach issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4