dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUNE 23, 2023 In Re: 26400082 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, 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 EB-2 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 Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established that 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. 
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 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. 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 ofDhanasar, 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 1, grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
1 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) . 
• 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 Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined 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. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner initially indicated that he intends "to work as an 
entrepreneur in the field of information technology (IT) consulting ... through the development of tech 
and cybersecurity projects." He asserted that he plans to expand his company, D-I-A-C-, and to offer "IT 
consulting services for small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) in the United States." In response to 
the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated: "I intend to continue using my expertise 
and knowledge in the areas ofIT audit, IT consulting, IT operations management, cybersecurity, business 
process improvement, business continuity, governance risk and compliance, C-suite and board advisory, 
team management, and leadership to work as an entrepreneur in the field of information technology." He 
further explained that D-I-A-C- "will operate as a consulting company providing services to SMEs, 
helping then build a solid IT infrastructure, secured by intelligent monitoring and risk management, which 
will support their business growth." The Petitioner added that his company's "portfolio of services will 
enable customers to strengthen, secure, and expand their operations, turning their businesses truly global. 
Finally, the company will also help them to optimize their IT processes, save costs, and maximize 
profitability." 
The Petitioner submitted the business plan for D-I-A-C-. This business plan includes industry and 
market analyses, information about his company and its services, financial forecasts and projections, 
marketing strategies, a discussion of the Petitioner's work experience, and a description of company 
personnel. Regarding future staffing, the Petitioner's business plan anticipated that his company 
would employ 11 personnel in year one, 20 in year two, 38 in year three, 70 in year four, and 116 in year 
five, but he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these 
additional employees. In addition, while his plan offers revenue projections of $724,500 in year one, 
$2,720,000 in year two, $6,365,000 in year three, $12,016,000 in year four, and $23,650,000 in year 
five, he did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated. 
The record includes information about the occupational outlook for top executives, foreign direct 
investment in the United States, immigrant entrepreneurship and U.S. immigration policy, immigrants 
as contributors to economic growth after the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. IT consulting industry, 
Biden Administration initiatives to promote immigrant entrepreneurship, global skilled labor 
shortages, the challenges of agile software development, the effect of technological change on business 
activity, the value of IT in the business sector, the U.S. STEM worker shortage, the value of highly 
skilled immigrants to the U.S. economy, the U.S. foreign-born population, global labor skills 
shortages, the role of entrepreneurship in U.S. job creation and economic development, and business 
operations investment. In addition, the Petitioner provided articles discussing immigrant 
entrepreneurs as drivers of economic growth, the software and information technology industry in the 
2 
United States, business owners' feedback on immigrant entrepreneurship in America, the role of 
technology in business, immigrants' positive effect on the business community and U.S. economy, the 
benefits of population growth, the rise of augmented reality (AR) in retail, the use of AR systems in 
fighting COVID-19, the value of software development, IT budgets and technology trends, the benefits 
of using a mobile app to reach customers, the talent shortage of software developers, foreign-born 
entrepreneurs as drivers of American innovation, the outlook for the IT industry, the role of 
entrepreneurs in the Biden Administration's recovery plan, cyberthreat defense, and cyber attacks on 
critical infrastructure and business operations. He also submitted information about the COVID-19 
pandemic' s effect on the business environment, the value of entrepreneurship, immigrants' 
contribution to the U.S. economy, cultivating a new generation of innovators, immigrants as drivers 
of entrepreneurship and innovation, the positive economic benefits of immigration, the value of 
operations management in business organizations, U.S. Department of Justice prioritization of 
ransomware attack investigations, the Transportation Security Administration's cybersecurity 
oversight, software development after COVID-19, the U.S. shortage of IT workers, the contribution 
of immigrant-launched businesses, the entrepreneurial legacy of immigrants and their children, the 
value of entrepreneurship in forging economic success, and the Biden Administration's initiatives to 
improve U.S. cybersecurity. The record therefore supports the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided letters of support from C-W-, D-O-, E-D-, O-A-, and T-P­
discussing his IT capabilities and experience. The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in 
his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific 
endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar' s first prong. 
The Petitioner also submitted an "Expert Opinion Letter" from B-W-, a professor of computer science 
and cyber security at G-F-U-, in support of his national interest waiver. B-W- contends that the 
Petitioner's proposed work is of national importance because his generic occupation of IT consultant 
and the industry in which he works stand to contribute to our nation's economic growth and security. 
The issue here, however, is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which 
the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. The letter from B-W- does not contain sufficient information and 
explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's 
specific proposed work operating an IT services consulting company offers broader implications in 
his field or substantial positive economic effects for our nation that rise to the level of national 
importance. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that his undertaking stands to have a "broader impact in the field ofInformation Technology 
at a level commensurate with national importance." The Director also indicated the Petitioner had not 
shown that his proposed work will offer "substantial positive economic benefits." 
In his appeal brief, the Petitioner points to his "nineteen (19) years of progressive experience in the 
information technology field," as well as his Bachelor's degree in Business Administration and Master's 
degree in Management Information Systems. Again, the Petitioner's education, skills, knowledge, and 
3 
experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework , which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. " Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific 
endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasa r' s first prong. 
The Petitioner also argues that there is a "steep shortage in the U.S. of professionals" in the IT field. We 
are not persuaded by the Petitioner 's claim that his proposed endeavor has national importance due to 
the shortage of professionals in his industry. Here , the Petitioner has not established that his proposed 
endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage . Further, shortages of 
qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S . Department of Labor through the labor 
certification process. 
In addition , the Petitioner contends that his undertaking "can promote important social and economic 
benefits for the nation immediately" and progressively affects "the United States' business industry, its 
economy , and the domestic job market." The Petitioner asserts that his proposed work "will improve the 
United States ' business sphere, and further position the nation as a business hub within the global 
economy. He will also create jobs and generate tax revenue through his U.S. based company. " The 
Petitioner further argues that his proposed endeavor offers "significant sales growth potential and 
significant employment opportunities for the nation, which will ultimately impact the productivity of the 
U.S. business ecosystem , as well as national economic activities." He also claims that his undertaking 
will "contribute to tax revenue , and ultimately help increase the flow of money in the U.S. on a national 
level, which will contribute to an enhanced U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) ." 
Furthermore, the Petitioner argues that his proposed work will "benefit the U.S. economy by improving 
business actions, generating more revenue , and contributing to the generation ofjobs in the country ." He 
claims that his undertaking "will serve U.S. interests and economic initiatives by enhancing the nation's 
financial landscape and consequently streamlining the business ecosystem." Additionally , the Petitioner 
asserts that his endeavor "will be beneficial to the financial and busines s industries in the U.S., and to its 
economy as a whole ." He also contends that his proposed services "to U.S. companies and organizations 
will drive results, improve productivity , and support the U.S. economy." 
In determining national importance , the relevant question is not the importance of the field , 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 Dhana sar, we 
further 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 
implication s 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. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable IT consulting services for his 
company 's client s, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demon strate that the 
pro spective impact of his propo sed 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 
4 
importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, we conclude the 
Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his future 
company and its clientele to impact the IT consulting industry, the cybersecurity field, or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. Specifically, he has not demonstrated that his company's future staffing levels and 
business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in! !or any other municipality 
the United States. 2 While the Petitioner claims that his company has growth potential, he has not 
presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his 
undertaking would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Id. at 890. In addition, although the Petitioner has asserted that his endeavor will generate 'jobs in the 
country," he has not offered sufficient evidence that the areas where his company will operate are 
economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers in those areas, or 
that his endeavor would offer the regions or their population a substantial economic benefit through 
employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity. 
For the aforementioned reasons, 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. Since this issue is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding 
his eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar. 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 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 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 reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 The Petitioner's business plan states that he "will establish the initial base of [his] company inL....J.---...L.U"""""-....w...._..""""'# 
ex and be ond that location. The business Ian incorrectly states that '1 !is a city located i , 
L--------r----..,__
_____
________. Maryland. It is also the county seat of " As a 
overnmental unit separated froml Iin 1851. Furthennore, __-is the county seat of 
...._ ..... These errors raise questions regarding the plausibility of the Petitioner's business plan . 
5