dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 10, 2024 In Re: 31638720 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(waiver petition), concluding the Petitioner had not established 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. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility for the underlying 
EB-2 visa classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act, 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. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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 l&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: 
• 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. 
11. ANVANCED DEGREE 
The Director denied the waiver petition, determining the Petitioner had not established the three 
Dhanasar prongs. The Director's decision did not indicate whether the Petitioner established his 
eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification. However, the Petitioner asserted below 
that he is an advanced degree professional as required for EB-2 classification and provided evidence 
in support. We will address his arguments. 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of baccalaureate. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). To have education and experience 
equating to an advanced degree, the Petitioner must have a single degree that is a U.S. baccalaureate 
degree or the "foreign equivalent degree", followed by at least five years of progressive experience in 
the specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). A U.S. baccalaureate 
degree is generally found to require four years of education. Matter of Shah, 17 l&N Dec. 244, 245 
(Reg'I Comm'r 1977). 
The Petitioner provided certificates and transcripts evidencing he completed a two-and-a-half-year 
program in information technology network management, a yearlong specialized program in 
information security, and a two-year business management program. The Petitioner did not submit 
evidence of completing a four-year degree program equivalent to that of a baccalaureate. Rather, the 
Petitioner submitted a credential evaluation, which does not cure this deficiency in the record. The 
author of the evaluation claimed that the Petitioner's network management degree has a "typical 
duration" of at least four years of postsecondary study; however, the transcripts and certificate 
provided by the Petitioner evidence that he attended the program for two and a half years. In addition, 
the author asserted that USCIS follows a rule that equates three years of relevant work experience to 
one year of education. The author then relied on this rule to determine the Petitioner "attained 
sufficient years of specialized training and work experience to equate to the college coursework in 
information technology." However, the author did not cite to any authority in support of the 
applicability of such a rule in the EB-2 visa classification context.2 The pertinent regulations require 
a bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree, which means individuals cannot combine experience, 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 To the extent the author was referring to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), equating three years of 
specialized training for each year of college level training, this regulation pertains to the Hl-B nonimmigrant visa 
classification. Nothing in the statute, regulations, or case law indicates or implies that the rule applies to noncitizens 
seeking immigrant classification under section 203(b)(2) of the Act. 
2 
training, or education to supplement a two and a half-year education program to equate to a four-year 
education degree.3 The author of the evaluation then listed the Petitioner's work experience and 
further claimed the Petitioner has the equivalent of a U.S. master's degree in information management 
because he has a bachelor's degree equivalent (based on his two-and-a-half-year program and his 
specialized training and work experience) followed by at least five years of progressive work 
experience in the specialty. However, without first establishing that he obtained a single U.S. 
baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent, having work experience does not meet the regulatory 
requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) to establish the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional. 
The Petitioner also asserts he meets the qualifications for the underlying EB-2 classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Exceptional ability in the sciences, 
arts, or business means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). An individual must provide documentation that 
satisfies at least three of six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) to meet the initial evidence 
requirements as an individual of exceptional ability. The Petitioner, however, only generally stated in 
the record below that he meets al I six of the regulatory criteria, without explanation as to how he meets 
the criteria to establish he is an individual of exceptional ability. 
However, because we conclude below that the Petitioner has not established the first prong of 
Dhanasar and is therefore ineligible for a national interest waiver, we reserve the issue of whether the 
Petitioner has established his eligibility for the EB-2 visa classification as an individual of exceptional 
ability, or whether he has demonstrated the second or third Dhanasar prongs to establish NIW 
eligibility. 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 {BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on 
appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
Ill. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The first prong of Dhanasar, 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, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. 
According to the Petitioner's statement and business plan submitted in the record below, the 
Petitioner's company, _________ will endeavor to provide end to end consulting 
and support for small and medium sized clients in Florida without the staff to implement higher 
technology solutions. The Director determined the Petitioner established that his proposed endeavor 
has substantial merit but did not establish that his endeavor is of national importance. We agree. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. "We look for broader implications" of 
the proposed endeavor. Id. at 890. "An 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. The Director acknowledged the 
3 The regulatory language at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) does not state that occupational 
experience is acceptable in lieu of a U.S. baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree. 
3 
Petitioner's business plan, support letters, industry reports, and articles and noted that the Petitioner's 
endeavor proposed to address the unique needs of every business client, provide end-to-end digital 
transformation services, including cloud infrastructure, unified communication and collaboration, 
network architecture and security, server, and storage solutions, and to create new job positions, 
generate taxes, and impact and help the economy. However, the Director determined the Petitioner 
had not established his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond an organization and 
its clients and impact the industry or field more broadly. The Director also recognized that the 
Petitioner's business plan indicated his company will start with 12 direct employees in the first year 
of operation and grow to 32 direct employees by year five, but concluded the business plan was 
insufficient evidence to demonstrate that his endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers 
or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects regionally or nationally as contemplated by 
Dhanasar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director's request for evidence (RFE) was cursory in nature and 
shallow in analysis of the evidence submitted. However, we note that the RFE notified the Petitioner 
that his initial evidence was not sufficient to meet his burden in establishing the three prongs of the 
Dhanasar analysis and provided him an opportunity to supplement the record.4 In addition, the 
Director's decision provided adequate notice regarding the deficiencies in the petition, and the 
Petitioner therefore was afforded an opportunity to address the deficiencies on appeal. 
The Petitioner also argues that the Director's decision did not consider the voluminous documents 
submitted below, incorrectly analyzed the issues, applied a clear and convincing standard of proof 
instead of preponderance of the evidence, and used boilerplate language in the analysis. The Director's 
decision is not required to address each piece of evidence submitted by the Petitioner. Moreover, the 
Petitioner does not identify what relevant evidence the Director failed to consider. Similarly, the 
Petitioner does not specify what issues were incorrectly analyzed by the Director. Further, with respect 
to the Petitioner's claims that the Director used boilerplate language, we conclude the Director 
appropriately referenced Dhanasar both as precedential legal authority and as illustrative of where 
prong one is satisfied. Based on our de nova review, the Director applied the correct standard of proof 
and we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish that his endeavor 
is of national importance. We supplement the record as follows. 
In order to establish the national importance of his endeavor, the Petitioner submitted a response to 
the Director's RFE, supplemented by an expert opinion letter,5 articles, reports, and a business plan, 
all addressing the importance of the information technology field and how the technology sector is 
one of the most significant contributors to the growth of the U.S. economy.6 We recognize the value 
of information technology services that the Petitioner intends to provide through his endeavor; 
however, merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of 
4 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(iii) gives USCIS the discretion to issue an RFE, but neither the Act nor the 
regulations compels us to do so. 
5 We note that the Petitioner's expert opinion letter was written in 2018 and describes the Petitioner's company as providing 
services outside the scope of the endeavor described in this petition and raises issue with whether the expert is sufficiently 
knowledgeable on the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to weigh in on its national importance. For example, the author 
discusses how the Petitioner's company would assist U.S. companies venturing into the "lucrative Latin American market," 
which neither the Petitioner's statement nor his business plan state. 
6 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
the proposed endeavor. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889 (explaining that in determining 
national importance, we do not focus on the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which 
the individual will work but on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake"). The Petitioner also highlighted the professional shortages in the informational 
technology industry, which he asserted his proposed endeavor will help to alleviate. However, the 
alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render his proposed endeavor 
nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are 
directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
In explaining the national importance of his endeavor, the Petitioner's briefs and business plan 
describe the services his company will provide to small and medium sized businesses, who the 
Petitioner noted faced disproportionate barriers to entering the marketplace. These services include 
assistance with: cloud computing, seamlessly moving work to a virtual environment (by providing 
solutions using voice and internet protocol telephone calling, instant messaging, desktop sharing, and 
video conferencing), network architecture and cybersecurity, and server and storage solutions, so U.S. 
businesses will grow and remain competitive. The Petitioner's RFE response described his company 
growing to employ 32 employees in five years,7 and explained that he will hire certified professionals 
to guarantee quality and safety. He discussed working in the state of Florida, where there are more 
than 460,000 small businesses, and with the company's proposed growth, he described generating 
over 1.7 million in taxes. He also stated he would share his expertise of the U.S. market and train U.S. 
workers. 
However, the Petitioner has not established through supporting documentation how his endeavor 
sufficiently extends beyond his prospective clients or employees, to impact the field or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner's expert 
letter opined on the potential benefits of his company's services but did not explain how these services 
have broader implications for our country. Rather, the author raises the same arguments addressed 
herein, such as, the importance of the information technology field, and the shortage of information 
technology candidates. While the Petitioner includes statistics and data on the technology field, and 
small businesses, he does not sufficiently explain in his business plan where his specific projections 
come from with respect to his company's growth. For example, the Petitioner did not present relevant 
supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures with respect to his company's projected 
growth, tax revenue, or employment projections. Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how 
his business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible or plausible, have 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. Although the business plan forecasts sales from one million in year one to almost six 
million in year five, the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the 
benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Similarly, even though the Petitioner's business plan 
claims the creation of three positions in year one and 20 positions in year five, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate the relevance of these numbers and show that such future staffing levels would provide 
substantial economic benefits to the Florida region or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner, for instance, did not establish that such 
7 We note that the proposed growth of the company varies throughout the Petitioner's briefs, business plan, and graphs 
included in these documents, with estimated growth reaching 88 employees in 5 years. 
5 
employment figures would utilize a significant population of workers in the area or would substantially 
impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. 
The Petitioner also contended that his endeavor falls within a STEM (science, technology, 
engineering, or mathematics) profession. With respect to Dhanasar 's first prong, the evidence must 
still demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (explaining, as 
guidance, the specific evidentiary considerations relating to STEM degrees and fields). 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. Id. On the 
other hand, while proposed classroom teaching activities in STEM, for example, may have substantial 
merit in relation to U.S. educational interests, such activities, by themselves, generally are not 
indicative of an impact in the field of STEM education more broadly, and therefore generally would 
not establish their national importance. Id. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his endeavor aims 
to advance STEM technologies and research or has broad implications rather than providing limited 
professional services by working within a STEM profession. 
The Petitioner also provided recommendation letters from colleagues, who attested to the quality of 
the Petitioner's work and experience. Although the letters praise his qualifications and professional 
accomplishments, the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. Similarly, the letters of interest submitted by the Petitioner 
also would be considered under the second prong to determine whether the Petitioner is well positioned 
to advance his endeavor. The issue here, however, is whether the specific endeavor he proposes to 
undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong, which he has not established by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for the underlying EB-2 classification as amember 
of the professions possessing an advanced degree. Further, he has not met the requisite first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework and therefore has not established that he merits, as a matter of 
discretion, a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6