dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 9, 2024 In Re: 35209006 
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 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 petition. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability; however, the Director also concluded that 
the record did not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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 ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (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: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• 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. 
The first prong, 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. 
Id. at 889. See id. at 888-91 for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability. The remaining 
issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a 
job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed 
below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer is warranted. 
The Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan to "establish and direct the operations of [ a company] 
based inl I Florida, [that] will specialize in providing services related to IT consulting solutions, 
including implementation, development, and migration of existing software to cloud environments, as 
well as software development for companies of several segments, resulting in improved performance, 
increased security, and reduced costs." The Petitioner submitted a business plan for his startup 
information technology consulting services company, which describes "provid[ing] application and 
system maintenance and support to ensure the availability and efficiency of the systems implemented 
for customers" and "creating custom solutions that address the unique needs of each client." 
The business plan clarifies, "In the first year of operations, [the Petitioner] will establish his housing 
inl I Florida, and his company will initially start with virtual operations." The business plan 
also indicates, "The Petitioner will serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company," with six 
additional workers in the first year of operations, with the following job titles: secretary, programmer, 
customer support manager, IT security analyst, cloud management analyst, and sales representative. 
The business plan anticipates the company will employ 25 total workers-including the Petitioner­
within the first five years of operations, with the following job titles: three programmers, customer 
support managers, and software developers, respectively; two secretaries, administrative assistants, 
RP A developers, TT security analysts, cloud management analysts, DevOps engineers, and sales 
representatives, respectively; and one operations coordinator, in addition to the Petitioner as the chief 
executive officer. 
We note that the business plan and, thus, the proposed endeavor it describes, does not appear to 
correspond to the description of the Petitioner's self-employed position he provided on the Form I-140, 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers. Specifically, in Part 6. Basic Information About the Proposed 
Employment on the Form I-140, the Petitioner stated that he would work as a chief executive officer 
and that his annual wages would be $189,520. However, the business plan indicates that the startup 
information technology consulting services company's chief executive officer's annual wages would 
2 
be $80,000 during the first year of operations, increasing to $97,241 in the fifth year of operations­
at most approximately half of the annual wages indicated on the Form I-140. None of the annual 
wages for any of the 25 positions during any of the first five years of the Petitioner's startup 
information technology consulting services company match the annual wages the Petitioner indicated 
on the Form I-140 that he would receive for his self-employed position. Thus, the business plan's 
summarization of the proposed information technology consulting services company's wages directly 
conflicts with the Petitioner's statements on the Form I-140 regarding what his self-employed annual 
wages would be for working as that startup company's chief executive officer. 
Doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 
1988). The inconsistent information in the Petitioner's business plan, compared to the information he 
provided on the Form I-140, regarding the annual wages he would receive cast doubt on whether the 
business plan corresponds to the position-and, thus, to the proposed endeavor-described on the 
Form I-140. Therefore, the reliability and sufficiency of the Petitioner's descriptions of the business 
plan specifically, and the record in general, is diminished. See id.; see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1) 
(providing that a petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition 
is filed); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971) (requiring petitioners to 
establish eligibility at the time of filing a benefit request). 
The Petitioner also submitted letters of recommendation and generalized information regarding 
business and information technology; however, their reliability and sufficiency are undermined for the 
reasons explained above. See id. 
The Director determined that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as required in part by the 
first Dhanasar prong. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. However, the Director also 
determined that the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have national 
importance, also required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. The Director observed that the record 
does not establish how the proposed endeavor "has implications beyond the company's clients and 
future employees, rising to the level of national importance." The Director noted that the record does 
not establish how the proposed endeavor "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or that it 
"stands to provide substantial positive economic benefits to the region where it operates or the United 
States." The Director also concluded that the record does not satisfy the second and third Dhanasar 
prongs. See id. at 888-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally asserts that "surveys, articles, and experts' testimonies" in the 
record establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance. He also notes that a letter of 
recommendation in the record "highlight[s] the significant benefits [the Petitioner's company] will 
bring to the U.S. business landscape." The Petitioner summarizes generalized information regarding 
business and information technology, apparently corresponding to the "surveys" and "articles" he 
references on appeal. The Petitioner also reiterates information from his business plan about his 
consulting services company's plan to provide "tailored services" for its clients and customers, and 
regarding his company's hiring plan. The Petitioner further asserts on appeal that his proposed 
endeavor "addresses a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance," 
specifically referencing the 2023 National Cybersecurity Strategy and the Technology Modernization 
Centers of Excellence Program Act of 2020. Relatedly, the Petitioner asserts that his "proposal 
3 
involves a range of STEM professionals, [which] align with the Critical and Emerging Technologies 
(CETs) identified by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the 2022 National Security 
Strategy." 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on 
"the speci fie endeavor that the [ non citizen] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential 
prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first 
prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or those with "significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
We first note that the "surveys [and] articles" in the record, which the Petitioner references on appeal, 
provide generalized information regarding business and information technology. However, the 
generalized information does not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to 
undertake, and how its potential prospective impact may have the type of broader implications 
indicative of national importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. For example, 
the generalized information in the record does not address how the Petitioner's proposal to found a 
startup information technology consulting services company may have national or even global 
implications within the field of information technology, or any other particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain manufacturing processes or medical advances. See id. As another example, the 
generalized information in the record does not discuss how the Petitioner's plan to employ between 
six and 25 workers-including himself-"initially start[ing] with virtual operations" but eventually in 
the I I Florida, metropolitan area demonstrates significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area. See id. 
Relatedly, neither the 2023 National Cybersecurity Strategy nor the Technology Modernization 
Centers of Excellence Program Act of 2020 address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes 
to undertake, and how its potential prospective impact may have the type of broader implications 
indicative of national importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. The governmental 
interest described in that strategy policy and act may inform an analysis of whether, on balance, 
waiving a job offer requirement would benefit the United States, as contemplated by the third 
Dhanasar prong, if the proposed endeavor first demonstrates national importance. See id. at 888-91. 
However, without addressing the Petitioner and the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, the 
policy strategy and act-and the remainder of the record-do not inform how the proposed endeavor 
may have national importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, USCIS need 
not consider the issues potentially raised by the third Dhanasar prong. See id. 
We next note that the Petitioner discusses science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 
fields, and he asserts that his proposed endeavor's relation to STEM fields makes his proposed 
endeavor nationally important. However, as explained above, in determining national importance, the 
relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will 
work, or in which a proposed endeavor will operate; instead, to assess national importance, we focus 
on "the specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential 
4 
prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." Id. at 889. Thus, the issue for determining 
national importance is not whether a proposed endeavor is within a STEM field but, rather, whether 
the potential prospective impact of a proposed endeavor-when it is in a STEM field-will have 
broader implications within that STEM field indicative of national importance. See id.; see also 
generally 6 users Policy Manual F.5(D), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
As explained above, the Petitioner's description of the proposed endeavor-particularly regarding the 
annual wages he would pay himself as the chief executive officer of his own startup company­
directly conflict with information the Petitioner provided on the Form I-140, specifically the annual 
wages he would pay himself as chief executive officer. Therefore, the Petitioner's description of the 
proposed endeavor casts doubt and reduces the reliability and sufficiency of both the business plan in 
particular and the remainder of the record in general. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591; see also 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); MatterofKatigbak, 14 I&NDec. at 49. 
Even to the extent that the business plan-and the remainder of the record-may be reliable and 
sufficient, it does not establish how the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor the 
Petitioner proposes to undertake may have the type of broader implications indicative of national 
importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889-90. Rather, the business plan-and the record in general-describes benefits that apply to the 
Petitioner, his information technology consulting services company, and its clients and customers. For 
example, the business plan discusses "provid[ing] application and system maintenance and support to 
ensure the availability and efficiency of the systems implemented for customers" and "creating custom 
solutions that address the unique needs of each client." The record does not clarify how providing 
services that directly benefit the information technology consulting services company's clients and 
customers may have broader implications beyond those clients and customers indicative of national 
importance. See id. In tum, the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have 
national or even global implications within the field of information technology, or any other field, 
such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. See id. 
As another example, the record does not establish how employing between six and 25 workers in the 
position titles noted above-including the Petitioner-"initially start[ing] with virtual operations" may 
demonstrate a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, whether in the Petitioner's proposed 
residence in the I I Florida, metropolitan area or in any other particular locale. The record does 
not otherwise establish how the proposed endeavor-providing information technology consulting 
services to clients and customers-may otherwise have substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area. See id. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner also references "experts' testimonies" and a letter of support in 
the record. However, as noted above, the Petitioner's business plan is neither reliable nor sufficient, 
see Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591, nor does it establish how the proposed endeavor may have 
national importance. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. In tum, because the reliability 
and sufficiency of the record in general is minimized, the reliability and sufficiency of the referenced 
opinions are also minimized. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Moreover, even if the referenced 
opinions may be reliable and sufficient, which they are not, because the Petitioner's own business plan 
does not support the conclusion that the proposed endeavor may have national importance for the 
reasons addressed above, the business plan-and the record in general-does not support the opinions' 
conclusions regarding whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance. See, e.g., Matter 
5 
of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) ("[E]xpert opinion testimony, while undoubtedly a 
form of evidence, does not purport to be evidence as to 'fact' but rather is admissible only if 'it will 
assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.'"). 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We 
reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 
26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6