dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 16, 2024 In Re: 29340186 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) network and cybersecurity engineer, 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 EB-2 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 had not 
established 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. 
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 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; 
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 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's decision did not render a determination as to whether the Petitioner qualifies as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Instead, the decision only addressed the 
Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. Therefore, the issue for consideration on appeal is 
whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 2 
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner indicated that he intends to continue working as an 
IT professional specializing in network and cybersecurity engineering. He asserted that he "will strive to 
guarantee and protect the integrity and regular operation of networks and data stores, along with securing 
companies and individuals against cyber threats." In addition, the Petitioner stated that his "proposed 
endeavor in the United States is to offer my expertise by sharing knowledge that will benefit U.S. 
companies looking to protect their data, systems and technologies . . . . [M]y work will ensure that 
companies' necessary confidentiality, integrity, availability and privacy are secured." 
The record includes occupational information about information security analysts, software quality 
assurance analysts and testers, computer and information research scientists and systems managers, 
data scientists, and information security engineers. Additionally, the Petitioner provided articles 
discussing the U.S. wireless services industry, the 5G economy, cybersecurity challenges, economic 
value from the wireless industry, the effect of COVID-19 on cybersecurity, the Trump 
Administration's cybersecurity strategy and national security strategic guidance, and Biden 
Administration actions to attract STEM talent and strengthen our country's economy and 
competitiveness. He also submitted information about America's 5G future, critical and emerging 
technologies, U.S. national security priorities, IT worker shortages, employment multipliers for the 
U.S. economy, and Biden Administration priorities regarding research and development fonding. 
Here, the Director concluded that the submitted documentation demonstrates the proposed endeavor's 
substantial merit. In determining national importance, however, the relevant question is not the 
general importance of the industry or occupation 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. The Petitioner must still establish the potential prospective impact of his specific 
proposed endeavor. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner offered letters of support from C-M-, C-L-R-, F-P-B-, L-F-A-F-, J-M-, and 
L-T-A- discussing his IT capabilities and experience. The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior 
work in his field, however, 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 issue here is whether the 
specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
2 Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility for a national interest waiver on appeal, we need not remand 
the decision for the Director to determine whether he qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. 
2 
The Petitioner also submitted an "Expert Opinion Letter" from Dr. A-A-, Adjunct Professor of 
Mathematics atl Iin support of his national interest waiver. Dr. A­
A- contends that the Petitioner's proposed work is of national importance because the generic 
occupation network engineer and the wireless telecommunications industry stand to contribute to our 
nation's economy, enhance societal welfare, and advance White House initiatives. The issue here, 
however, is not the national importance of the field, 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. While the advisory opinion cites to publicly available information from the 
White House and the Federal Communications Commission to establish the overall importance of 
promoting STEM talent and bringing broadband to rural areas, it does not demonstrate how performing 
day-to-day network and cybersecurity engineering services for U.S. companies as contemplated by the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to a level of national importance. The letter from Dr. A-A- does 
not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating 
evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work offers broader implications in his field 
or substantial positive economic effects for our nation that rise to the level of national importance. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that his undertaking "stands to sufficiently extend beyond an organization and its clients to 
impact the industry more broadly." The Director also indicated that the Petitioner had not shown that his 
proposed work "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or offers "substantial positive 
economic effects" for our nation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to USCIS policy guidance relating to persons with advanced degrees in 
STEM fields. 3 He contends that his "proposed endeavor substantially develops and promotes some 
technologies recognized by the U.S. National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) as being 
critical and emerging." The Petitioner argues that his undertaking "aimed at increasing the national 
cybersecurity and maintaining 5G technology in the country, must be classified as related to critical 
and emerging technology, as his work falls within the Communication and Networking Technologies 
field according to the NSTC's Critical and Emerging Technologies List Update, which includes, 
among others, next-generation wireless networks, including 5G and 6G, and communications and 
network security." He also mentions U.S. government policies and initiatives relating to cybersecurity 
and STEM education. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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 
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 
3 "USCTS recognizes the importance of progress in STEM fields and the essential role of persons with advanced STEM 
degrees in fostering this progress, especially in focused critical and emerging technologies or other STEM areas impo11ant 
to U.S. competitiveness or national security." See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. 
3 
economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. 
at 890. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. We recognize the 
overall value of the IT industry , attracting STEM talent, and strengthening our nation's cybersecurity 
and wireless network infrastructure . However, as the Director noted, the evidence does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific undertaking stands to have an impact beyond the 
organization and clients he would serve, or that his proposed work would otherwise have broader 
implications for the IT industry or U.S. cybersecurity initiatives. For example, he does not claim, and 
the record does not establish , that he plans to introduce novel technologies or IT advancements that 
may be disseminated to or adopted by others operating in the field or industry, or otherwise articulate 
how he will contribute to development of our nation's cybersecurity technologies or next-generation 
wireless networks. 
Further, while the Petitioner asserts that his undertaking "impacts directly a matter that a government 
entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives ," he has not 
offered sufficient informati on and evidence to demonstrate that the prospecti ve impact of his specific 
proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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 conclude the Petitioner has not shown 
that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his future U.S. employer or its 
clientele to impact the cybersecurity field, the IT industry, or the U.S . economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S . workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact 
or job creation attributable to his future work, the Petitioner has not shown that the benefits to the regional 
or national economy resulting from his projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
For the aforement ioned reasons, the Petitioner 's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding 
his eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar. 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 established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
4 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5