dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 16, 2024 In Re: 31109960 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a computer and information systems manager, 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 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 
(national interest waiver), 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 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) . 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). 
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 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. 
II. EB-2 CLASSIFICATION 
The Director determined that the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional because he has the 
foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the 
specialty and thereby qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa classification under section 203(b)(2){A) 
of the Act. 
A. Advanced Degree Professional 
Based on our de nova review of the Petitioner's diploma, transcript, and credential analysis, we agree 
that the Petitioner's five-year engineering degree obtained in 2012 is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's 
degree. 
However, the Petitioner has not established he has five years of progressive experience in the specialty. 
According to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), evidence relating to qualifying experience or training shall be in 
the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) or trainer(s) and shall include the name, 
address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the petitioner or 
of the training received. The Petitioner submitted a translation of his employment and social security 
booklet, which lists his employer names, their taxpayer IDs, their address, their specialization, the 
Petitioner's job title, his dates of employment, and his compensation. However, the documents are 
not in the form of letter(s) from his current or former employer(s) or trainer(s) and do not describe the 
duties he performed or training he received and therefore do not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(g)(1). The Petitioner also submitted a letter by a former employer to establish he has five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty. However, the letter only provides the Petitioner's 
title and the date he began employment. The letter does not include the name and title of the writer, 
does not provide the full dates of employment, does not specify whether the Petitioner worked full 
time, and does not include a specific description of the duties performed by the Petitioner or of the 
training he received to meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1). 
The Petitioner asserted in the record below that he has an engineering degree and a masters of business 
administration (MBA) certificate, which establishes he holds a degree above that of aU.S. bachelor's 
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 USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
degree. As discussed above, he established his engineering degree amounts to that of aU.S. bachelor's 
degree. However, the Petitioner has not established he has a graduate degree. He submitted a 
certificate demonstrating he enrolled in a lato sensus course in 2016 titled, "executive MBA in 
administration: information technology management." According to the record, the course duration 
was approximately one and a half years. Information from the American Association of Collegiate 
Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) 
provides:2 
Professional development and specialization programs are considered lato sensus (wide sense 
graduate-level programs) and follow independent legislation. Such programs lead toward 
professional certificates, not graduate degrees. They require 1 to 2- or 1- to 3- years of study.3 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he is an advanced degree professional and we 
withdraw the Director's determination to the contrary. 
B. Exceptional Ability 
The Director did not analyze whether the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 visa classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. The Petitioner generally asserted 
before the Director that he qualifies for the underlying immigrant classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability without further discussion. The Petitioner does not make this assertion on appeal. 
As the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor, as outlined 
below, we reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding whether he qualifies for EB-2 visa 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 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 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 Director determined that although the Petitioner established he was an individual well-positioned 
to advance his proposed endeavor and his proposed endeavor has substantial merit, he did not 
demonstrate that he merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest" 
because he did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance and that on balance 
waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. On appeal, the Petitioner submits 
a brief, and a copy of the initial brief filed with his petition, and his response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE). 
2 EDGE is a non-profit, voluntary association of more than 11,000 professionals in more than 40 countries. See AACRAO, 
Who We Are, https://www.aacrao.org/who-we-are. We consider EDGE to be a reliable source of information about 
foreign credential equivalencies. See Confluence Intern., Inc. v. Holder, Civil No. 08-2665 (DSD-JJG), 2009 WL 825793 
(D. Minn. Mar. 27, 2009); Tisco Group, Inc. v. Napolitano, No. 09-cv-10072, 2010 WL 3464314 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 
2010); Sunshine Rehab Services, Inc. No. 09-13605, 2010 WL 3325442 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2010). See also Viraj, LLC 
v. Holder, No. 2:12-CV-00127-RWS, 2013 WL 1943431 (N.D. Ga. May 18, 2013). 
3 AACRAO, Brazil, https://www.aacrao.org/edge/country/brazil (last visited July 16, 2024, and incorporated into the 
record). 
3 
The first prong of Dhanasar, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&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. Id. According to the Petitioner's professional plan, 
his proposed endeavor is to manage information technology (IT) projects. In doing so, he intends to 
use his 20 years of IT expertise, people management, and work with multidisciplinary teams to 
contribute to the growth, development, and productivity of new professionals and companies, and 
thereby boost the U.S. economy. The Director determined the Petitioner established that his proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit. We agree. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Id. "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. at 890. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner 
identified the following evidence as establishing his endeavor's national importance: his proposed 
plan, an expert opinion letter, recommendation letters from former colleagues, his resume, and 
industry reports and articles. In determining the Petitioner had not established the national importance 
of his endeavor, the Director explained that, while the Petitioner's professional plan addressed the 
importance and economic impact of the Petitioner's field in general, it did not explain how his specific 
endeavor has national importance, would result in substantial positive economic effects, or otherwise 
stands to have broader regional or national implications in the IT industry. The Director also 
determined that the submitted articles and reports regarding the industry again did not discuss the 
Petitioner's specific endeavor and thereby did not establish its national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision does not reflect consideration of the 
totality of the evidence submitted with the petition and in response to the Director's RFE. Although 
we acknowledge that the Director did not discuss all of the relevant evidence, the decision reflects an 
analysis of the totality of the evidence as it pertains to national importance and the Petitioner does not 
explain on appeal how the contents of the specific evidence she asserts was not considered would 
establish national importance. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration of the petition, and 
has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim a petitioner 
makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence a petitioner presents. See Amin v. 
Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022); Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir. 1992); ajf'd 
Morales v. INS, 208 F.3d 323, 328 (1st Cir. 2000); see also Pakasi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 
2009); and Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009). Upon de nova 
review, the Director did not err in the ultimate determination on national importance, as discussed 
further below. 
The Petitioner's expert opinion letter, dated August 2022, discussed but does not establish the national 
importance of his endeavor. The author first raised the importance of the field of IT project 
management. While we recognize the value of IT services; merely working in an important field is 
insufficient to establish the national importance of 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 author also highlighted the 
professional shortages in the IT industry and asserted the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will help in 
4 
alleviating the shortage. However, the author does not explain how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
will alleviate the national shortage and neither does the record below. Furthermore, alleged shortage 
of occupations or occupational skills does not render a 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. The author also stated that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor has significant potential to generate jobs and tax revenue, to strengthen 
the growth and profits of U.S. companies, and to advance the field of IT Project Management, but 
does not provide details on how the Petitioner's endeavor would have these impacts to the economy 
or the field. We acknowledge the author's explanation that the Petitioner will apply his extensive 
experience in IT Project Management in both national and international scenarios and use his skills in 
IT Project Management to help U.S. companies increase their sales, improve their internal and external 
processes, expand their business, and reduce business costs. However, even if the Petitioner had 
presented evidence to demonstrate these claims, which he does not, the author does not explain how 
these benefits would extend beyond the organization the Petitioner would be assisting and its clients 
to impact the industry or field more broadly. See id. at 893 ( determining the petitioner's teaching 
activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his 
field more broadly). 
The Petitioner also provided recommendation letters from colleagues, who attested to the quality of 
the Petitioner's work and experience, and his resume. He asserted the evidence demonstrated the 
impact of his work in the field. Although the letters praise his qualifications and professional 
accomplishments and his resume identifies his skills and experience, they do not evidence the broader 
impact of the Petitioner's work. Moreover, 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. 
The Petitioner submitted industry reports and articles discussing, e.g., the U.S. government's 
prioritization of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics fields, the role of IT project 
managers, the IT services market, the economic benefits of the IT industry. However, the matter here 
is not whether IT initiatives or the field is nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of managing IT projects to 
contribute to the growth and development of new professionals and companies and to help them 
increase productivity and revenues, thereby boosting the U.S. economy. We therefore agree with the 
Director that these articles do not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's particular 
endeavor. 
The Petitioner has therefore not demonstrated how his proposed endeavor's impact would extend to 
the broader field or industry sufficient to establish its national importance. 
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude the Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor 
is of national importance and that he is eligible for a national interest waiver. We therefore reserve 
our determinations regarding whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the second or third Dhanasar 
prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. at 526 n.7 
(BIA 2015). 
5 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for the underlying EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional. Further, he has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework and has not established that he merits, as amatter of discretion, anational interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6