dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 15, 2023 In Re : 26246152 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chief technology officer, 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. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director determined that the record 
established the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification but did not establish 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) 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 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (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 determined that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree and the record supports this conclusion. 2 Therefore, the sole 
issue before us is whether the record establishes that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus 
of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
Although the Director found substantial merit in the proposed endeavor, and that the Petitioner is well­
positioned to advance it, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed 
endeavor has national importance and that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would be 
beneficial to the United States. For the reasons provided below, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and therefore is not eligible for a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The record reflects that the Petitioner is an experienced information technology (IT) professional with 
approximately 25 years of employment which has included technical, commercial, academic, and 
senior management roles, and involvement in projects spanning several industries. His resume reflects 
that he had one prior assignment as a chief technology officer (CTO) with a Brazilian company, from 
May 2019 until his entry to the United States in 2020. 
In a professional plan submitted with the initial filing in September 2020, the Petitioner described his 
intended employment as a CTO in the United States as follows: 
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 ... 
My career plan in the United States is to use the knowledge I have acquired in the 
Information Technology field to work on large scale projects in the United States that 
involve complex Information Technology Systems. I am capable of developing, 
implementing, and managing all activities for such projects and I plan to continue using 
my intimate knowledge of information technology to directly help companies, 
organizations and institutions in the U.S. with their computer and information systems. 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), in which he was asked to provide a more detailed 
discussion of his specific proposed endeavor, the Petitioner submitted an updated professional plan 
indicating: 
2 The Petitioner provided an official academic record documenting his completion of a master of science in electronic and 
computer engineering at a Brazilian university, along with an educational evaluation indicating that this foreign degree is 
equivalent to a U.S. master's degree in the same field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "advanced degree"). 
2 
My career plan in the United States is to work for American financial technology 
companies (FINTECs) that require my specialized knowledge, years of experience, and 
significant expertise in the IT field as Chief Technology/Operations Officer. ... 
If my waiver is granted, I will contribute significantly to the information technology 
sector, helping FINTECs or other U.S. businesses improve their strategies and 
practices. 
In his RFE response, the Petitioner indicated that he has been working fon Ia 
Florida-based financial technology company that provides loan and payment processing solutions to 
the e-commerce industry, since March 2021, initially in the position of director of global payments, 
and currently as vice president of operations. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 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. 
In support of his claim that he meets the requirements of this prong, the Petitioner initially submitted 
his professional plan and statement, an expert opinion letter, recommendation letters, and industry 
articles and reports on the software and IT industry, the future of technology in the workplace, and the 
global talent shortage in the technology and business sectors. The Petitioner's response to the RFE 
included: his updated professional plan; a ._________ __. investor presentation; published 
articles and reports on the financial technology market and the rise of financial technology firms as a 
source of lending to small businesses; articles about the role of CTOs in financial technology 
companies; and additional letters from his current and former employers. While we may not discuss 
each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one in determining 
whether he satisfies the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, the record did not establish the endeavor's national importance, as the evidence did 
not convey an understanding of how the Petitioner's proposed activities stand to have broader 
implications in his particular field. The Director emphasized that the overall importance of the 
Petitioner's occupation or industry does not establish the national importance of his proposed activities 
and concluded that here, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that the proposed 
endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, would broadly enhance societal welfare, 
or would offer substantial positive economic effects for the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes his extensive experience in the IT field and asserts that the 
previously submitted evidence establishes that his role as a CTO is of national importance because it 
serves several needs of the U.S. economy and impacts "nationally important matters" related to the 
3 
fields of business and technology, offering benefits that will support the success and growth of small­
and medium-sized businesses. 3 
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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we 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. 
Here, much of the evidence submitted in support of this prong addresses the industry or profession in 
which the Petitioner intends to work without addressing his specific proposed endeavor. For example, 
the Petitioner has submitted articles, reports and statistics that highlight the importance of the IT 
industry, the growing financial technology field, and the impact these industries have on the growth 
of the U.S. economy, along with generalized descriptions of the CTO role and its significance. 
Although we agree that these fields and industries are important, and senior technology roles are 
critical to companies operating in these sectors, we emphasize that this evidence does not necessarily 
establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor under the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
In support of his eligibility under the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner submitted as expert 
testimony a letter from a professor at I I University. However, this evidence also focuses 
primarily on the Petitioner's proposed occupation and the IT field in general. The author emphasizes 
that the IT industry provides a "foundation for much of the business, military and civilian activity that 
occurs daily throughout the country," generally discusses the industry's impact on the U.S. economy 
and emphasizes that the Petitioner is qualified to perform work that is "in demand and has national 
importance in the IT sector." Although the professor comments generally on the IT industry, his letter 
does not explain how the Petitioner's specific endeavor would have broad implications for the industry 
or substantial economic effects on the regional or national economy consistent with national 
importance. 
The professor also opines that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor "impacts a matter that a government 
entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives," 
emphasizing the federal government's commitment to advancing technological research and 
development, promoting emerging technologies and innovation, and creating well-paying jobs in the 
technology sector. Many proposed endeavors that aim to advance science, technology, engineering, 
and mathematics (STEM) technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, not 
only have substantial merit in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, but also have 
sufficiently broad potential implications to demonstrate national importance. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. However, the fact that a petitioner's 
proposed endeavor falls within an IT or STEM field does not automatically show eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. Rather, the specific proposed STEM endeavor must have both substantial 
3 On appeal, the Petitioner also asserts that the Director deprived him of due process and fair treatment by denying the 
petition without first issuing a request for additional evidence or notice of intent to deny. However, as noted, the record 
reflects that the Director issued an RFE on May 11, 2022. The Director specifically addressed the Petitioner's RFE 
response in the final decision. 
4 
merit and national importance with respect to the first prong ofDhanasar. Therefore, while the expert 
opinion letter points to national initiatives to promote progress in STEM fields, it does not opine on 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would "aim to advance STEM technologies and research" 
and otherwise have sufficiently broad potential implications to demonstrate national importance. The 
professor's assertion that persons in eTO roles are generally responsible for controlling research and 
product innovation are overly broad and do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed activities. 
We observe that users 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'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r. 1988). However, users 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. The Petitioner must demonstrate the national 
importance of his specific proposed endeavor as a eTO, rather than the significance of the occupation 
within an organization or the national importance of STEM and IT-related industries. 
To demonstrate national importance, we look for evidence of a proposed endeavor's broader 
implications in the field. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 889. Dhanasar explains 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. 
As noted, the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor involves working in a eTO role with a financial 
technology company. On appeal, he emphasizes that his activities will include leading the development 
of artificial intelligence (AI) based credit and risk management solutions that enable increased access to 
credit for early-stage small- and medium-sized businesses as well as leading the implementation of"low­
cost, cross-border digital payments that would enable small and medium business to export/import goods 
and services." He maintains that due to the contributions of small businesses to the U.S. economy and 
the fact that a large percentage ofAmerica's 32 million small business firms have women, minority and/or 
veteran owners, his proposed endeavor's support of small businesses "is an initiative of national 
importance with direct impact to the U.S. economy and social development." The Petitioner also cites 
statistics regarding the rapid growth of the financial technology market, noting that it is projected to grow 
to $324 billion by 2026. He asserts that "national importance is evident" with respect to his proposed 
endeavor and maintains that there will be a continuing need for professionals with his expertise. 
The Petitioner asserts that he will work as a eTO with a financial technology company or "other 
business," but primarily describes his proposed endeavor in terms of his current employment as vice 
president of operations with._________ _. In support of his claims, he submitted his U.S. 
employer's investor presentation and letters from two of its executives. The submitted investor 
presentation highlights I lmission to provide e-commerce merchants with "the best 
financial tools to grow their business, while noting that these merchants are "underserved by financial 
institutions and fintechs" and as a result may struggle to finance their growth with debt and lack access 
to financial products that meet their specific needs. The presentation also highlights the company's 
5 
unique competitive positioning within the growing $45 billion global market for e-commerce financial 
products, emphasizing its sole focus on e-commerce merchants, scalable solutions, and its "industry­
leading" technology and intellectual property that includes "state-of-the-art scoring models and risk 
management." 
The record includes letters froml Ichief compliance and risk officer and chief executive 
officer, who both similarly praise the Petitioner's "high level of expertise" and emphasize specific 
contributions he has made to company products and processes during his first full year of employment, 
noting that such contributions have positively impacted both the company and its customers. While these 
letters establish that the Petitioner's expertise and professional skills are highly valued byl I 
the letters primarily focus on how his work benefits his employer. The chief compliance and risk officer, 
for example, does not articulate any broader implications for the financial technology industry or 
otherwise address how the Petitioner's activities fo~ ~ are of national importance. 
In his letter,! ICEO states that the Petitioner is "leading the development of an innovative 
payment orchestration solution" which would enable traditional banks, other financial technology 
companies, e-commerce platforms, payments companies and others to "take advantage of our state of the 
art scoring model and risk management ... to expand their services to small and medium e-Commerce 
Business." The author expresses his opinion that this solution, once implemented, will be "an 
unprecedented contribution to this industry," but does not further explain or elaborate on this project or 
otherwise provide a basis for that conclusion. He also states that the Petitioner's "strong background in 
technology, software engineering, business management and strategic thinking, makes him a key 
contributor to I I and to the Fintech industry, being proved byl Istrong 
operation metrics and expressive growth (>200%) Year on Year." While the CEO's letter suggests that 
the Petitioner has already made and will continue to make contributions with broader implications in the 
financial technology industry and substantial economic effects that would reach beyond his employer and 
its customers and partners, we find insufficient evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
Although the Petitioner indicates that it is his intention to work as a CTO in the financial technolo}fs 
sector, the record does not establish that his position as vice president of operations fo~~----~is 
comparable to a CTO role. As noted, proposed endeavors that aim to advance STEM technologies and 
research, whether in academic or industry settings, may have sufficiently broad potential implications 
to demonstrate national importance. Many of the responsibilities and accomplishments the Petitioner 
lists in his updated resume indicate he is focused on internal operating efficiencies for his employer 
rather than on activities to advance the company's technology. For example, he indicates that his main 
responsibilities include managing and revamping customer support services, implementing loan 
portfolio risk and default analysis, managing delinquency collections, supporting merger and 
acquisition strategies and analysis, designing new operating procedures, defining the company's 
business continuity and recovery plan, and managing the operational treasury. While he lists 
"managing product development" among his responsibilities, it is evident that the company has 
separate technology, global payments, and technology departments and reasonable to conclude that 
those departments are more directly involved in advancing the company's technology solutions. In 
addition, the organizational chart for the operations department, which includes the Petitioner's direct 
and indirect reports, does not include engineering or other IT positions; the positions listed are roles 
in customer service, agreements, collections and payments, delinquency, analytics, factoring, and sales 
6 
support. While we do not doubt that he has some involvement in steering product development 
activities, the exact nature of his role in advancing his employer's technology is not clear and it does 
not appear to be the primary focus of his position. 
In his professional plan, the Petitioner himself describes his projects withinl Iprimarily in 
terms of how they will positively impact his employer's profit and loss and the staffing of the operations 
department that he leads, rather than discussing the broader implications of his specific activities. The 
submitted investor presentation provides examples ofhowl lhas positively impacted several 
customers operating in the e-commerce sector. However, it is unclear that the company's reach in the 
sector is sufficiently widespread to have national implications. The investor presentation indicates that 
I I operates within a $45 billion e-commerce financial solutions market, and offers a specific 
combination of solutions not offered by other companies that provide financial products to e-commerce 
customers.4 As noted, the Petitioner maintains that his continued work on development of products and 
solutions in this sector will therefore result in increased access to credit for early-stage small- and 
medium-sized businesses as well providing "low-cost, cross-border digital payments that would enable 
small and medium business to export/import goods and services." While I I product 
portfolio includes lending and international payment solutions to e-commerce merchants, the record does 
not demonstrate, for example, that it is a major player or driver of growth in the market in terms of its 
size, revenue or number of customers served, or that it has received industry recognition for its product 
and service contributions. 
As noted, 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. In his professional 
plan, the Petitioner stated that he restructured I I operations department and created six 
additional positions that will be filled as the business evolves. His plan includes staffing projections 
for his department, noting that he expects the number of full-time departmental employees to increase 
from 12 in 2022 to 26 by 2025. He does not attribute the creation of any additional direct or indirect 
jobs to his specific proposed endeavor. Therefore, while the record reflects that the Petitioner has the 
authority to hire subordinate operations staff: he has not established how his individual employment, or 
this hiring authority, would affect information technology employment levels or the U.S. economy more 
broadly consistent with national importance. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding 
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 acknowledge that the Petitioner provided numerous reference letters from former colleagues and 
professional contacts. The authors of the letters extol the Petitioner's personal and professional 
qualifications, his past record of achievements, as well as his performance and experience. However, 
the Petitioner's qualifications and expertise 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 Director 
4 The investor presentation indicates thatl competitors include banks, small and medium enterprise (SME) 
lenders, e-commerce lenders, financial technology firms such as PayPal, and e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, 
Walmart, and Etsy. 
I
7 
found the Petitioner well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and these letters tend to support 
that conclusion. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake 
has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that his continued work in his current field will ultimately 
support the growth of small and medium businesses in the United States, as well as drive the growth 
of the financial technology industry, both important contributors to the national economy. However, 
the record lacks sufficient evidence that his specific proposed endeavor will have broad implications 
in the field or substantial positive economic impacts on a scale that rises to the level of national 
importance. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the third Dhanasar 
prong. 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 demonstrate his eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8