dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 17, 2024 In Re: 31284363 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an information technology entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and 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, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, 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 ofChrista's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that her 
proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, she did not meet the national importance 
requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
884. 
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. Next, a 
petitioner 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 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; 
• 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 determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner alleges through counsel that the Director "did not objectively 
evaluate all evidence under the preponderance of evidence standard. Instead, [they] imposed [a] novel 
standard." Except where a different standard is specified by law, the "preponderance of the evidence" 
is the standard of proof governing immigration benefit requests. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 375; see also Matter ofMartinez, 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); Matter of Sao Hoo, 
11 I&N Dec. 151, 152 (BIA 1965). Accordingly, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard 
of proof governing national interest waiver petitions. See 1 USCIS Policy Manual, E.4(B), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While counsel asserts on appeal that the Petitioner has 
provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate her eligibility for a national interest waiver, counsel does 
not further explain or identify any specific instance in which the Director applied a standard of proof 
other than the preponderance of evidence in denying the petition. 
The Petitioner emphasizes throughout this proceeding that she has more than 24 years of experience 
in the information technology (IT) field, as well as relating college degrees. She plans to direct and 
oversee the operations of her company, V-, as its CEO and senior IT consultant. She initially indicated 
that her company "will provide a comprehensive set of IT consultancy services for each department 
of an educational institution," noting: 
[V-' s] consulting services will comprise of technology consulting, developing 
software, implementing technology, teaching clients how to optimize technology use, 
as well as implementation of more advance students' evaluation. . . . [V-] will devote a 
part of its budget to digital marketing to drive traffic to its website ... [ and] will 
participate in trade shows as they allow for the opportunity to speak to and associate 
with new business contacts. 
Later in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), she explained that her "proposed 
endeavor will give educational institutions the potential to effectively attract and engage students 
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 USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 As the record demonstrates that the Petitioner is a member of the professions holding an advance degree, her assertion 
that she is also an individual of exceptional ability is moot. 
2 
through using online learning platforms, tailored content, virtual classes, digital assignments, 
attendance tracking systems, and other technological solutions that she will develop." 
Before the Director, the Petitioner submitted a variety of documentation, including evidence of her 
education and experience, statements describing her proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a 
national interest waiver, a business plan, recommendation and support letters, and an expert opinion 
letter. She also submitted industry reports and articles, discussing the challenges faced in U.S 
education systems, the benefits of STEM-related employment and the important role of immigrant 
entrepreneurs on the U.S. economy. 
She suggests, among other things, that the impact of the teaching tools she will develop will extend 
"far beyond the classroom and into the foundation of the United States' education system," and that 
through her digital training products her endeavor will "target regionally distressed locations and 
provide services for underserved communities who may not have as large a budget as areas outside 
larger metropolitans." Additionally, she contends that her products will improve "math competency 
and encourage[] students to pursue STEM majors in college and STEM careers upon graduation." 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner submitted 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, they 
also concluded in part, that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor had 
national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and relies on the evidence submitted to 
the Director which they reviewed and considered in denying the petition. For the following reasons, 
we agree that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her endeavor. While we 
may not discuss every document in the record, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
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 Dhanasar, 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 
implications 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to the evidence in the record about U.S. government initiatives, and 
the importance of entrepreneurship and STEM employment in the United States, asserting that she 
"will offer high quality, student tailored, interactive learning solutions." When 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 id. at 889. Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the importance of digitized 
learning, STEM employment and entrepreneurship generally, rather than her specific proposed 
endeavor to our nation. Collectively considering the articles, reports, and statistics, we conclude that 
they do not sufficiently support a finding that her specific proposed endeavor has national importance. 
3 
As noted above, to establish national importance, the Petitioner must demonstrate the proposed 
endeavor's impact. Although the Petitioner contends that her "adaptive learning methods will have a 
ripple effect on the educational goals of educational institutions and student performance," and that 
her endeavor will contribute to the U.S. economy, she has not supported these assertions with sufficient 
independent, objective evidence. In addressing national importance in the first prong of the 
framework, the Dhanasar decision sets out that the focus is on the specific endeavor being proposed. 
As such, we do not consider the tenuous, indirect consequences of a petitioner's activity when 
determining whether it is of national importance. Id. 
On appeal the Petitioner points to her business plan to support the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor, referencing her projections for V-'s prospective tax payments and asserts that her company 
will pay over $82,000 in taxes in in its first year of business and $346,000 in its fifth year. The business 
plan also suggests that her business will create 28 jobs by the end of year five. But these projections 
are not sufficiently supported in the record. Additionally, while she indicates that the impact of the 
learning tools that she will develop and market in the United States will be far reaching, the evidence 
does not adequately explain how her products differ from or improve upon those readily available and 
in use in the United States. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's IT 
development strategies will reach beyond benefitting her own company and its clients or will have 
broader implications within the IT field or on her target market - the public sector organizations and 
private sector entities engaged in delivering services within the U.S. education system. 
The Petitioner also provides an expert opinion prepared by Dr. W- of _______ who 
praises the Petitioner's education, experience, past success, personal qualities, and the results she 
achieved. In his analysis Dr. W- opines: "[The Petitioner] with extensive experience in the 
Information Technology section, has the capability to render services to companies in the United 
States," and that her endeavor "impacts a matter that a government entity has described as having 
national importance or is the subject of national initiatives." However, these qualities relate to the 
second prong of the Dhanasar framework, that the individual is well-positioned to advance their 
proposed endeavor, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. 
at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner's specific endeavor has national importance under 
Dhanasar 's first prong. 
Importantly, Dr. W- does not specifically explain how the Petitioner, through her proposed endeavor 
will have a significant prospective impact on the United States, including the national or global 
implications of her software products on the U.S. education system, its potential to employ U.S. 
workers, or through other positive economic effects. The information offered in Dr. I I letter is 
largely limited to general observations about the Petitioner's qualifications and the occupation and 
industries in which she will work. He does not offer any analytical roadmap that lays out the basis for 
his opinion that the Petitioner meets Dhanasar 's first prong. Where an opinion is not in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable, USCIS is not required to accept it or may give it less 
weight. See Matter ofSea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817 (Comm'r 1988). We conclude Dr.I lopinion 
letter provided lends little probative value to the matter here. 
Similarly, the Petitioner has provided reference letters from current and former employers and 
colleagues who outline her work accomplishments and put forth general statements that assert her 
services would be beneficial to our country should she immigrate to the United States. Clearly, the 
4 
letter writers hold the Petitioner in high regard. However, the submitted do not provide sufficient 
clarity regarding the specific endeavor that the Petitioner will focus on should this petition be 
approved. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it is qualified for 
the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, eligibility 
is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. Here, the record does 
not establish that her proposed endeavor stands to substantially impact the field at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Dhanasar at 890. 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. Because 
this identified basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally 
required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter ofD­
L-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 568, 576-77 n.10 (BIA 2022) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5