dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 29, 2024 InRe: 30174723 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , an individual who works in the field of information technology , or IT, seeks 
employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification . See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification , when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner merited a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion . 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 ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&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." Id. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCTS 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional. The 
remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner initially described his proposed endeavor as an intention to expand his current software 
development company into the United States. He described software he created and would further 
develop that would gather certain data to contribute to workplace safety-software designed, as he 
stated, to "help/dissuade/minimize occupational accidents" at small- and medium-sized companies. 
In response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner provided the following statement to summarize 
his proposed endeavor: 
As the majority shareholder of [ my company] (US subsidiary), my goal in having a 
permanent visa to live and work in the US is to make [ the company] a leading custom 
software manufacturing business and start opening to international markets, 
strengthening trade relations in the US, with Latin America and Europe. Since I have 
led [the company] for almost a decade, I am confident that I can apply the necessary 
skills to grow a business contributing to the U.S. technological and economic 
competitiveness. 
The Petitioner also provided the following concerning his endeavor: 
My endeavor includes the completion of the ... product I have been developing. This 
product will benefit all companies concerned about their employees' well-being, 
especially related to workplace safety and health. Although it was initially created for 
companies in the Oil & Gas sector, [the product] can be applied to all types of 
companies. [The product] is designed to prevent accidents related to oil fields. Still, it 
can be used in offices for accident prevention on stairs [ and] to determine the proper 
positions for sitting and deadlifting. 
The Director concluded that, while the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit, he did 
not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor would have national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Goining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Comts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
asserts that the Director's decision did not contemplate or discuss all of the evidence of record. For 
the reasons described below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of his endeavor in order to establish his eligibility under the first 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
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 determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. 
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." Id. at 889. 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. Further, to evaluate 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to 
evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner initially asserted-and asserts again on appeal-that certain documentation in the 
record related to the field of information technology (IT) establishes the national importance of his 
endeavor. That documentation describes government initiatives to encourage the growth of small­
and medium-sized businesses in the United States and to modernize the use of IT in government; the 
importance of talent in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) to the 
U.S. economy and societal well-being; and Occupational Safety and Health Administration business 
practice recommendations. This material, however, does not provide sufficient insight into the 
Petitioner's plans to provide IT services through a company that, according to his business plan, "will 
help organizations achieve operational efficiency with the latest digital transformation tools." While 
the provided documentation relates to the area in which the Petitioner intends to develop his business, 
it does not speak to how the Petitioner's individual endeavor to run an IT services company would 
have a potential prospective impact of national importance. 
The Petitioner's business plan states that "automation of operations is one of the highest priorities" of 
American companies and asserts that his company "will seek to create strategic alliances with 
universities to develop research projects in the fields of medicine, robotics, agrotechnology, 
occupational safety and health that will improve people's quality oflife .... " However, the business 
plan does not identify any specific intentions that his company has concerning particular research 
projects or his company's role in such projects, nor does it explain how his company would partner 
with other entities to achieve a national impact on a specific industry or field. We also note that, 
although the business plan describes his work safety software product, it does not explain how it 
compares to current workplace safety technologies or other safety measures or how it would be 
deployed in a manner that would have an impact of national importance. 
3 
Concerning projections specific to the Petitioner's company, his business plan estimates that, by its 
fifth year of operation, he will employ at least 20 workers, paying $212,497 in payroll taxes and 
generating $2,048,000 in sales. However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed 
endeavor would serve to impact the industry or field more broadly, rising to the level of national 
importance. For instance, it is not clear how the Petitioner's operation of one company in a field that 
was expected to increase its revenue-according to statistics provided in the record-to $44.8 billion 
in 2022 would have a positive economic impact at the level of "substantial economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Further, the projections in the business plan are not supported 
by objective evidence to demonstrate how his company would have a prospective national impact on 
the field or on an economy of any scale. The Petitioner's claims do not provide an objective basis for 
his projections, nor are the numbers corroborated by probative evidence sufficient to demonstrate that 
it is likely the company would have a positive national economic impact or a national prospective 
impact within the field. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to show that he would 
employ a significant population of workers in a particular region, nor has he shown that his proposed 
endeavor would offer a region or its population substantial economic benefits through employment 
levels, business activity, or tax revenue. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, 
and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor based on its potential job 
creation or impact on the U.S. economy. 
The business plan also emphasizes that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would address IT and 
STEM workforce shortages in the United States, highlighting that the employment of software 
developers is projected to grow by 22% from 2020 to 2030, "much faster than the average for all 
occupations." However, we observe that fluctuating opportunities within the general labor market do 
not demonstrate that his endeavor stands to have an impact on any of the numerous industries served 
by IT service providers or other STEM professionals, or otherwise have implications rising to the level 
of national importance. It is not clear how a business of the size and scope described in the business 
plan would address any purported workforce shortages in the IT or STEM fields that would constitute 
an impact on a national level. 
The business plan also asserts the importance of the Petitioner's intentions concerning "knowledge 
transfer" through his provision of training and guidance to his company's potential personnel and 
interns. We note, however, that while USCIS Policy Manual guidance provides that proposed teaching 
activities in STEM fields "may have substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational interests, such 
activities, by themselves, generally are not indicative of an impact in the field of STEM education 
more broadly, and therefore generally would not establish their national importance." 2 Here, the 
Petitioner has not explained how his proposed endeavor would have a broader impact in the field of 
STEM education or training. Further, 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. The Petitioner's intention to transmit his knowledge to his employees 
is not considered an activity that would have a broad impact on his field. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the nation. Specifically, he 
2 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2). 
4 
has not shown that his business stands to provide substantial economic benefits to any particular 
locality or to the United States overall. As such, the business plan does not demonstrate that the 
prospective benefits to the 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. 
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. 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 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5