dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WL. 14, 2023 In Re: 27363804 
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 petition, concluding that, although the record 
demonstrates the Petitioner's eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, he 
did not establish 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. 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 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 of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree 2 and that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit. The 
Director also determined that the record did not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor has national 
importance or satisfy the second and third Dhanasar prongs. For the reasons provided below, we 
agree that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner submitted a professional plan in which he proposed to work as a 
computer and information systems manager in the United States. Specifically, he stated: "I want to 
work with a company that provides products or services that is enabled by cutting-edge technology 
systems to improve people's lives" and "work on large scale projects ... that involve complex 
information technology systems." 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided evidence that he had accepted an 
IT specialist position with a U.S. employer. He also indicated that he intends to establish his own IT 
consulting company after securing lawful permanent resident status and submitted a business plan 
which states that it will offer an insurance management software package, software licensing, software 
training and support services, and IT consulting services. The Petitioner will be in charge of 
administrative and technical management functions. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
As evidence, the Petitioner submitted (1) his professional plan and updated "definitive statement" 
describing his intended endeavor, (2) a business plan, (3) letters of support from current and former 
colleagues, (4) an expert opinion letter from a professor atl IUniversity, (5) a summary 
report for computer and information systems managers, and ( 6) media articles and industry reports on 
the IT industry, the labor and talent shortage in the industry, the intersection between technology and 
business, and the contributions of immigrant entrepreneurs to the U.S. economy. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director did not give due regard to this evidence in addressing the national 
2 The Petitioner provided evidence that he has the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree in inf01mation systems 
followed by more than five years of progressive work experience in this specialty and therefore established that he has the 
equivalent of a master's degree based on the applicable definition of "advanced degree" at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
2 
importance of the proposed endeavor. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have 
reviewed and considered each one. 
The Petitioner emphasizes the importance of both the IT industry and entrepreneurship as drivers of 
the U.S. economy and submits several articles and reports in support of his claim. This evidence is 
relevant to the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor and we agree with the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner meets this element of the first Dhanasar prong. 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 I&N Dec. at 889. In addition, we 
indicated 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. 
The Petitioner suggests that his proposed endeavor will have broader implications by "strengthening 
the IT industry," noting that this industry is important to the American economy, impacts other 
industries and markets, improves the population's quality oflife, improves the financial results of U.S. 
companies, and will contribute to "the recovery of the American industry and economy impacted by 
the COVID-19 pandemic." We recognize the value of the IT industry and entrepreneurs and their 
respective direct and indirect impacts on the U.S. economy and other aspects of life in the United 
States. However, as the Director noted, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
company and its activities would have economic impacts beyond the clients it would serve, or that it 
would otherwise have broader implications for the IT industry or other businesses in the United States. 
For example, he does not claim, and the record does not establish, that his company will introduce 
technologies or IT services that may be disseminated to or adopted by others operating in the field or 
industry, or otherwise articulate how his company will make a significant contribution to 
"strengthening the IT industry." 
Further, while the Petitioner generally declares that technology can improve the quality of life for 
individuals, he does not elaborate on how his business would do so and the record does not provide 
adequate support for a determination that his specific proposed endeavor will have the scope or 
influence to make a wide-reaching impact. 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. Here, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not submitted 
sufficient evidence to establish what the broader implications of his work would be, that his work 
would extend beyond his company and its clients to impact the IT consulting field in which he intends 
to operate, or that it would broadly enhance societal welfare at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
In Dhanasar, 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. The submitted business 
plan includes projections that the company would employ 25 workers and achieve annual revenue of 
approximately $2 million within five years. The Petitioner also indicates that his company will 
generate the creation of 125 indirect jobs and make tax contributions that will farther add value to the 
U.S. economy. 
3 
We have reviewed the business plan and observe that the job creation and revenue projections included 
therein are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how those projections 
will be realized. Even if the Petitioner had established a sufficient basis for these projections, they 
would not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. While the sales forecast and 
projected income statement indicate that the Petitioner's prospective business has growth potential, it 
does not demonstrate that it has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or would result 
substantial positive economic benefits to the regional or national economy. We have also considered 
claims that there are labor shortages in the Petitioner's industry, but he has not suggested that his 
proposed endeavor would lessen the shortage of trained IT professionals on a scale rising to the level 
of national importance. 3 
The Petitioner also states that his business location will be i~ IMassachusetts, in a designated 
HUB Zone area.4 As the company is not yet formed and does not have a physical location, the 
Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that his business will be located in a HUBZone. Further, 
he did not indicate that his endeavor would participate in the HUBZone program or that it would be 
eligible to do so. While it appears that the Petitioner may have intended to equate a designated 
HUBZone with an "economically depressed area," the record does not support a conclusion that this 
is an equitable comparison. The Petitioner has not otherwise claimed or provided evidence that the 
area where his company will operate is economically depressed, that it would employ a significant 
population of workers in that area, or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population a 
substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or related tax revenue. 
Through his personal statements, appellate brief: and recommendation letters from current and former 
colleagues, the Petitioner has placed considerable emphasis on his academic training and professional 
experience in the information technology field. While important, they are considerations under the 
second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the 
foreign national." Id. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to 
undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. While the Petitioner maintains that 
he has already "contributed to greatly improve the industry" and worked to improve "the quality of 
life of the nation's population," the submitted recommendation letters and other evidence do not 
contain sufficient detail to corroborate this claimed impact. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner provided an expert opinion letter from a professor at 
I !University. In addressing the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the author 
emphasizes the economic importance of the U.S. and global information technology industry, the 
industry's demand for experienced professionals, the significant size of the Brazilian IT market, and 
market opportunities and challenges facing foreign companies seeking to do business in Brazil. He 
states that U.S. companies "doing business or planning to do business in Brazil would benefit from 
the expertise and skills of a seasoned Computer and Information Systems Manager and 
3 We also note that such a shortage of qualified workers is directly addressed by the U.S. Depaitment of Labor through the 
labor certification process. 
4 Under the HUBZone program, the U.S. government seeks to fuel small business growth in historically underutilized 
business zones, with a goal of annually awarding at least 3% of federal contract dollars to HUBZone-certified companies 
annually. See "HUBZone Program," https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistanceprograms/hubzone­
program. 
4 
Telecommunications specialist" and indicates that the Petitioner has the ability "to bridge the gap 
between U.S. domestic business methods and Brazilian methodologies, within his field." The 
professor also notes the Petitioner's ability to make "major contributions to improve and facilitate 
cross-border transactions between the United States and Latin America" and concludes that his work 
would be "in an area of substantial merit and national importance." 
However, the expert opinion letter does not address the Petitioner's business plan, the specific 
proposed endeavor, its prospective substantial economic impact, or any broader implications of the 
proposed endeavor in the field. In fact, the author appears to be under the impression that he will be 
focused on consulting with U.S. and Latin American interested in cross-border transactions and 
investments in IT and other projects, which is not the business model described by the Petitioner. 
We observe that USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, 
professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of 
Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter of 
D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445,460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be given expert 
testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). Here, much of the content 
of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
Because the Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor has national importance, he is not 
eligible for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. We reserve our 
opinion regarding whether the evidence of record satisfies the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 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 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 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 reasons state above. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5