dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18133503 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 13, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, project manager specialist, 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 beneficia I 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualifies for the underlying classification, the record did not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor 
has national importance and that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance it. Accordingly, the 
Director determined thatthe Petitioner had not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner submits additional evidence and reasserts his 
eligibility, arguing that the Director erred in the decision. 
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 "nation al 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). In announcing this new framework, we vacated 
our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 
215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, USCIS may grant a national interest waiver as matter of discretion. See also 
Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to 
grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). As a matter of discretion, the 
national interest waiver may be granted 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. See 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. We agree. The record contains evidence that the Petitioner earned a foreign four­
year degree in computer science in 2004 and has at least five years of professional experience in the 
information technology (IT) field. The remaining issue to be determined, therefore, 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 Petitioner described his proposed endeavor in terms of the work he performed in the past, which 
included executing IT development and support projects for leading international banks and financial 
institutions. He stated that he performed work related to software analysis, development, and 
management in publicly listed companies, ensuring compliance with international rules and 
regulations. The Petitioner also mentioned that he founded a startup, which allows him to choose the 
role he will play in the United States, whether it be as a key staff member of a U.S. company or as a 
future entrepreneur who directly employs Americans and contributes to U.S. development and 
innovation. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided the 
following verbatim bulleted list of proposed work: 
- Continue working as an IT professional in the U.S. where I will continue to grow professionally 
and personally, working closely with those U.S. companies that requires my advance 
knowledge to improve IT systems. 
- Provide project planning, identify project deliveries, involve in client interaction, 
troubleshooting, project and people management. 
- Helping companies to gain competitive advantage through business intelligence solutions 
- Working on complex banking systems as business analyst, project manager or system 
developer. 
- Potentially creating a company to provide IT services. I already have my first experience as a 
startup entrepreneur, and may want to try again. 
On appeal, the Petitioner clarifies that although he holds the title of a certified "project manager," he 
is also a systems engineer by virtue of his computer science education. His appeal includes printouts 
3 
of job postings and recruitment for positions that he asserts he is qualified to fill, including an 
entrepreneur in residence with a financial company and a business analyst with wealth management 
He also states that he has applied to a new position with in his current employer! I 
Taken together, we conclude that the Petitioner has not clearly defined his proposed endeavor. 
Although he proposed many ideas for work within the IT field, the record remains unclear as to 
whether the Petitioner intends to work as a systems engineer or project manager for a financial entity, 
pursue a startup, be self-employed, work in one of the IT positions listed in the job posting printouts, 
or pursue all of these options consecutively or concurrently. In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner 
must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. He re, 
the Petitioner has not identified his proposed endeavor with sufficient specificity. The purpose of the 
national interest waiver program is not to enable a petitioner to en gage in a U.S. job search. As each 
of these proposed employment possibilities has the potential to produce a different impact, we 
conclude that the lack of specificity in the proposed endeavor inhibits a proper examination of the 
endeavor's national importance. Accordingly, for this reason and the reasons discussed below, we 
agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance 
of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's arguments regarding the importance of the IT field, the shortages of 
IT workers, and that he is well-qualified for his proposed endeavor. However, 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 l&N Dec. at 889. In addition, the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, 
education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue under the first prong is 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of his proposed work. 
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 evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement by looking to evidence that documents the 
"potential prospective impact" of his work. To i I lustrate, "[ 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. 
Although the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable IT services for a potential 
employer or clients, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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. To the extent that the 
Petitioner's endeavor can be understood, we conclude the record does not show that it stands to 
suff iciently extend beyond the employer and clientele to impact the field or the nation's fiscal 
condition more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
4 
In order to illustrate the potential impact of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner pointed to his success 
in the past. He claimed that he increased the business results, compliance rates, and technical standards 
for multiple capital market companies. As a result of his expertise, the Petitioner also claimed that he 
has increased operations for large businesses, controlled their procedures, improved management, and 
reduced their expenses and losses, which enabled them to expand. Even if the Petitioner replicates 
these results for U.S. companies through his proposed endeavor, his help and these results would be 
contingent upon those companies hiring him to manage their projects and paying him for his services, 
indicating advancement more for the parties involved than for overall national impact. 
On appeal, he argues that through his IT methods and projects, he can "help to increase service levels, 
profits enhancements, cost savings, etc., therefore generating jobs and improving the results of the 
fields which in tum impacts the US economy" and is of national interest. While we acknowledge 
these claims, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to substantiate them. For instance, the 
Petitioner has not identified any clients he plans to work with or any projects he intends to engage in, 
nor has he provided specific and concrete examples of how his help would increase service levels or 
enhance profits and cost savings. The Petitioner has not offered a breakdown of the type or number 
of jobs the endeavor will lead to, nor can we ascertain where the jobs would be, such as within the 
Petitioner's employer, as a part of the Petitioner's own business, or within the IT field generally. 
Finally, the Petitioner made little attempt to substantiate how his proposed endeavor would operate at 
a level so significant that it would impact the U.S. economy. For example, we have little information 
on how much revenue the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will generate or for whom. The Petitioner 
must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 
25 l&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected 
U.S. economic impactor job creation attributableto his future work, the record doesnotshowthatbenefits 
to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's projects would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
We examined the numerous recommendation letters from the Petitioner's former coworkers, 
employers, and superiors in which the authors praise the Petitioner's personal qualities, work abilities, 
and vast experience. However, few authors demonstrate knowledge of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor; instead, they focus on the Petitioner's past work. Although the authors identified the 
Petitioner's career successes, including his management of a new fund registration system compatible 
with the client's system and which supported ISO 20022 standardized messages, they did not 
substantiate how the Petitioner's work impacted the IT field, as opposed to the individual clients and 
employers for whom the Petitioner worked. While such a project may have been important to the 
client, the record does not support a finding that it had importance to the IT field as a whole, nor does 
the record contain sufficient information concerning the Petitioner's specific role in the project's 
success. While we acknowledge the ISO 20022 newsletter concerning the topic, the article contains 
no mention of the Petitioner or his specific work in this area. 
Although some letters reference the Petitioner's unique techniques and new methodologies, the 
authors do not explain what they are or provide details concerning what makes them new or unique. 
Moreover, the authors do not explain how others who have notworkedwith the Petitioner would know 
about the Petitioner's unique or new techniques and methodologies. The record contains little 
indication that other IT professionals have adopted the Petitioner's techniques and methodologies. 
Accordingly, the letters do not contain specific examples as to how the Petitioner's work has influenced 
5 
the field. Although the authors offer general praise, generalized conclusory statements that do not 
identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 
F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in 
immigration benefits adjudications). The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters so as to determine 
whether they support the petitioner's eligjbility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. 500, n.2 
(BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
Also in support of his claims, the Petitioner submitted an I pini
1
n letter fro ml la 
professor of computer science and information systems at University. I I largely 
discusses the Petitioner's past work and does not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. Nevertheless, he asserted that the Petitioner's endeavor would increase the 
productivity of the U.S. IT industry, allow the United States to maintain its lead in the world market 
as well as impactthe Gross Domestic Product(GDP) and lead to job growth. In addition! I 
claimed that the Petitioner's proposal to lead large-scale IT infrastructure development and 
implementation projects will improve the efficiency and competitiveness of major institutional clients 
and contribute to the continued growth and global dominance of the United States' IT industry. While 
we acknowledge these claims, neithe~ I nor the Petitioner offers sufficient evidence to 
substantiate them. For instance, the Petitioner has not identified any institutional clients he has 
contracted with or plans to work with, nor has he provided concrete examples of how he will improve 
their efficiency and competitiveness. The Petitioner has not provided an estimate of how much 
revenue or business he will generate for his clients and therefore, we have little evidence to support a 
finding thatthe endeavor would operate on a level so substantial as to impactthe GDP. As previously 
explained, we do not have evidence of the type or number of jobs the endeavor leads to, nor is there 
any indication of where the jobs would be created. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion 
statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with 
other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible 
for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligjbility for the benefit sought; the 
submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. A~ I 
has offered insufficient corroborating evidence to support his claims, we conclude, consistent with 
Caron Int 'l, Inc., that his opinion carries little weight in this matter. 
As previously stated, the Petitioner proposed many ideas for work within the IT field, but he has yet to 
identify his specific proposed endeavor. In addition, the Petitioner's evidence is insufficient to show 
how his proposed work has broader implications for his field, as opposed to being limited to the clients 
and the companies who hire him. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. 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. 
6 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has notmettherequisitef irstprongof 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 reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7