dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23414548 Date: MAY 02, 2023 
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 and/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 petition, concluding the record did not establish 
the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter a/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 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 tenn "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 discretion1, 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 Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish he qualifies for the EB-2 classification. 
Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established eligibility for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, 
we have reviewed and considered each one. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 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 l&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner proposes to work as an entrepreneur in the information technology (IT) field. He plans 
to start his own business, which will enable him to: 
• Provide IT services to U.S. companies; 
• Determine and formulate policies and provide overall direction of companies or private and 
public sector organizations; 
• Work as a consultant to develop technology teams and systems; 
• Develop and offer short-term technical and practice-oriented nonacademic courses; 
• Train low-skilled, possibly unemployed, workers in economically depressed areas; 
• Consult foreign businesses as they seek to introduce their products and services into the U.S. 
market; and 
• Facilitate commercial transactions between the United States and Latin America, thus 
increasing foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States. 
In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Id. Here, the Petitioner has not done so. His proposed endeavor involves a 
variety of services in addition to running his own business. He has not explained how he will divide 
his time between the various facets of his proposed endeavor. Without this detail, the Petitioner 
obfuscates the endeavor's prospective impact. Documents in the record mention the Petitioner will 
offer benefits to the United States through foreign direct investment, as well as that he could offer 
benefits to businesses conducting or planning to conduct business in Brazil. While we acknowledge 
these claims, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how his business would involve these 
activities to such an extent that it impacts the field of IT or the nation as a whole. Similarly, he has 
not sufficiently described how he will teach and train others while maintaining his business and 
providing IT services to other companies. Even if he had explained this, it would still be insufficient 
to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner has not established that the benefit of his services will extend beyond his clients and 
company. He submitted little evidence to establish how his specific endeavor would influence the IT 
2 
field or otherwise impact the nation. For instance, the record does not reflect that his services are 
different, better, or cost less than other IT services, nor has the Petitioner presented evidence to 
establish his services would be available on a scale that rises to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner referenced a nationwide shortage of IT and Science, Technology, Engineering, and 
Mathematics (STEM) professionals, the monetary value of the IT industry, its growth potential, and 
the importance ofIT work to the nation's economy. In support, he submitted articles and reports that 
provide helpful background information on these matters. However, none of the reference materials 
discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. We acknowledge the importance ofIT and STEM 
fields, and also of addressing the nation's shortage ofIT professionals; however, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained how his work as an entrepreneur would resolve the shortage or produce an 
impact rising to the level of national importance. In determining national importance, the relevant 
question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; 
but rather, "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See id. Other 
relevant questions are what the broader implications of the proposed endeavor are and how the 
endeavor may have national importance, for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field. Here, the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of 
the industry as sufficient to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's business plan in which he described his mission and the services he will 
provide. Although he provided projections in revenue and job creation, the Petitioner has not offered 
a sufficient foundation or corroborating details to support the projections. As such, these figures 
appear to be little more than conjecture. The Petitioner asserted he will bring benefits to areas of 
economic depression. However, he has not indicated which areas he will reach or how the benefits of 
his endeavor would reach these areas. For instance, the Petitioner has not presented evidence showing 
that the physical location of his business will be in an economically depressed area such that it might 
readily provide a source of jobs, nor has he demonstrated that he will predominantly or exclusively 
hire and serve individuals living in those areas. Therefore, we cannot conclude the Petitioner's 
endeavor offers substantial positive economic effects in an economically depressed area. 
Although the Petitioner highlighted that his endeavor would positively impact the economy and job 
creation, he has not offered sufficient evidence to corroborate these claims. We acknowledge the 
Petitioner's argument that through his services, the companies that hire him can be more productive 
in providing services to others and that the benefits of a productive, well-functioning business extend 
beyond the individual organization. He also explained that his services will make his clients more 
efficient such that their businesses will positively contribute to the economy as well. However, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to establish a strong connection between the proposed endeavor 
activities and positive economic changes or job creation on a level commensurate with national 
importance. In Dhanasar, we dete1mined 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. 
Similarly, the proposed endeavor may very well positively impact the individuals and businesses that 
engage the Petitioner for his services, but the evidence does not suggest the Petitioner's services will 
be available broadly to the public or on a level that creates national or global implications in the IT 
field. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact 
without providing evidence to corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions 
3 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
2010). 
In his advisory opinion, ________________ states the Petitioner's 
endeavor has national importance because the additional business-to-business activity would create 
the indirect effect of new jobs and improved wages and salaries, which would then allow for increased 
household spending and consumption. I I opined that the Petitioner's endeavor will also have 
a multiplier impact on the areas of income and revenue. He explained that the increased business 
activity would create more business income, which leads to more state and federal tax revenue, as well 
as personal income. While we acknowledge and understand how basic economics functions, the 
record does not evidence a sufficiently direct connection between the proposed endeavor activities and 
either job creation, tax revenue, or increased household spending. Without sufficient information or 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, 
the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the 
Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated 
by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
We reviewed the support letters from the Petitioner's former colleagues and conclude they do not 
sufficiently support a finding of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong. The authors 
of the letters discussed the results he achieved for his clients and how the Petitioner performed well in 
the past. Many authors commented that the Petitioner impacted his field and even the way Brazil 
conducts business. Specifically, some authors described how the Petitioner digitized advertising 
content and provided a searchable database for the companies that hired him, while others wrote that 
he changed the way the whole advertising market works. Nevertheless, the authors did not sufficiently 
explain how the Petitioner's performance, or the results he achieved, extended beyond his employer 
and the specific parties involved to impact the field more broadly. 
As the Director explained, "the testimonial letters offer no detail about the extent of the petitioner's 
claimed achievements ... or how, exactly, the petitioner has played a significant role in the work of 
others in the field." The authors provide generalized and conclusory statements about the Petitioner's 
impact without offering independent and objective evidence to corroborate their claims. Generalized 
conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 
1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C.1990) (holding that an agency need not credit 
conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). The submission of reference letters 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of 
those letters so as to determine whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. Id. See also Matter 
of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to 
be evidence as to "fact"). 
In addition, the authors praised the Petitioner's personal and professional qualifications which pertain 
to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. However, the Petitioner's expertise acquired through 
his employment relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from 
the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is 
whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has substantial merit and 
national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
4 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director did not consider certain pieces of evidence and failed 
to apply the correct standard of proof when reviewing the evidence. In support, he relies primarily 
upon the evidence and arguments previously submitted. However, for the reasons explained, the 
record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs 
outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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). 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar framework, we conclude he has 
not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. The appeal will be dismissed for the above 
stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5