dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 6, 2024 In Re: 28446292 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) entrepreneur, seeks 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. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the national interest waiver. 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 nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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 EB-2 eligibility, 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 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 as a member of the professions with a bachelor's 
degree and progressive post-baccalaureate experience equivalent to a master's degree under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). The remaining issue to be determined 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. 
The Petitioner earned a bachelor's degree in social communication in Brazil in 1984. After working 
in computer sales and marketing, in 1993 the Petitioner opened a computer shop and a related service 
business, also in Brazil. The Petitioner entered the United States in 2019 as an F-1 nonimmigrant 
student to study English as a second language. 
In a "Professional Plan & Statement" submitted with the petition, the Petitioner stated: "My proposed 
endeavor in the United States will be to open my own company to continue working as a Computer 
Information Systems Manager/Entrepreneur in the U.S., planning and directing computer-related 
activities for other organizations." 
The Petitioner indicated that his "initial plan is to buy an IT franchise." The Petitioner stated that he 
had '"established contact with two IT companies," each of which has sold hundreds of franchises in 
the United States. The Petitioner indicated that one of the two companies "is one of the most forward­
thinking IT franchises in the nation," whereas the other company "has a wider product portfolio ... , 
and it could be a better business opportunity." 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), asking for a more detailed description of the 
proposed endeavor. In response, the Petitioner submitted a business plan, indicating that "[h ]e wants 
to start an I.T. service providing company in I I Florida" to "cater to small and medium 
enterprises." The Petitioner indicated that his "IT consulting firm" would later open locations in New 
York and California. The business plan does not mention either of the franchisors named in the initial 
submission. The business plan indicated that "the company will offer the implementation ofMicrosoft 
Solutions ... and implementation of Cybersecurity solutions," and "will provide IT managed services" 
and "IT support for small and medium enterprises." 
The first Dhanasar 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We look for broader implications. An 
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 889-890. 
2 
In his initial statement, the Petitioner stated that he "will contribute directly to the field of information 
technology by assembling and leading teams in the development of critical solutions." The Petitioner 
stated that his proposed endeavor would "[t]ake businesses to new heights of integration," 
"[ s ]treamline and manage IT systems that will most benefit the more rural and economically 
underserved areas," and "[i]mprove sales and services of companies in the U.S. by promoting their 
product or service at any place and any time without additional expenses and extra time needed." The 
Petitioner asserted that his proposed endeavor would "help U.S. companies doing business in Brazil 
to seize market and investment opportunities." 
In a separate statement, the Petitioner discussed general information about the IT industry. This 
information does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. 
The discussion of the proposed endeavor was naITower, with few details. For example, the Petitioner 
asserted that he "is qualified to facilitate cross border IT projects." The Petitioner stated that "he will 
use his skills to develop industry-wide structures, meaning he will improve his [customers'] 
productivity." The Petitioner did not explain how improving his customers' productivity is equivalent 
to "develop[ing] industry-wide structures." The Petitioner also did not elaborate on the assertion that 
his proposed endeavor will "driv[ e] technological transformation" and "improv[ e] IT solutions." 
The Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter from an associate professor of marketing at 
who stated without elaboration that the Petitioner "can help U.S.~---------~ companies to find the best solutions and improve productivity while improving costs," and likely "will 
be asked to present at lectures, congresses, and seminars." The Petitioner did not document this type 
of outside interest in his work. 
In the RFE, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had established the substantial merit of the 
proposed endeavor, but the Director requested more information, supported by documentary evidence, 
to establish the proposed endeavor's national importance. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a business plan, indicating that "[h ]e wants to start an 
I.T. service providing company in I I Florida" to "cater to small and medium enterprises." The 
business plan indicated that "[t]he business endeavor will potentially impact the U.S. in numerous 
ways." In contrast to the original list of claimed benefits, which included providing services to 
customers and helping U.S. companies to do business in Brazil, the business plan emphasized claimed 
economic benefit within the United States, such as attracting investment and creating employment. 
We will discuss this business plan in further detail below. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner had not established how the proposed 
endeavor "will have national or global implications within the field, will have significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers, will broadly enhance societal welfare or will impact a matter that the 
government has deemed as having national importance." The Director concluded that the benefit from 
the proposed endeavor would be largely confined to the Petitioner's company and its customers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "did not give due regard to ... [the] Business Plan, 
which ... allows concrete projections of the benefits [the Petitioner] may offer the U.S." The Director 
acknowledged the business plan in the denial notice. We agree with the Director's conclusion that the 
Petitioner did not submit adequate evidence to support the claims in that business plan. 
3 
The business plan includes a table of "Projected Wages Payout in five years," showing plans to hire a 
sales director, sales managers, clerks, and account managers, and to engage the services of technicians 
as contractors. This table indicates that the Petitioner would have a total of 18 employees and 30 
contractors in its fifth year. 
Another table, labeled "Summary of Employment Generation over five Years," indicates that the 
proposed endeavor would produce 120 jobs during that time, comprising 56 full-time employees and 
64 contractors. These sums, however, are inflated by counting the same hires over multiple years, 
adding each year's total to the next year's total. Elsewhere in the record, the Petitioner relies on the 
erroneous higher figure when discussing his company's hiring potential. 
The Petitioner did not cite supporting inf01mation for either version of the staffing projection, and did 
not establish that this level of staffing would have the "substantial positive economic effects" 
envisioned in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The business plan also contends that the proposed endeavor will "address ... the shortage of qualified 
and experienced LT. professionals," but did not explain how it would do so. The business plan 
indicates the company would be "highly reliant on skilled personnel," but it does not show any 
infrastructure to train workers who are new to the IT field, or explain how the proposed endeavor 
would otherwise add new workers to the labor supply. 
The business plan includes a chart worded in a manner that implies the company is already staffed and 
actively doing business. It states: "Our team is trained, specialized and certified," and that "[ w ]e are 
partners of the main security players on the planet." Elsewhere, the business plan states that the 
company already "has ... state-of-the-art service and equipment." But the record does not show that 
the company has advanced beyond the conceptual stage. 
The Petitioner contends that the Director did not sufficiently consider "Industry Report[ s] and Articles, 
which demonstrate the national importance of the Appellant's proposed endeavor." Reports and 
articles in the record discuss the IT industry, economic conditions in the areas where the Petitioner 
intends to establish businesses, and immigrant entrepreneurs, but these materials do not specifically 
describe the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its potential impact. Rather, these materials amount to 
background information about general subjects. 
The Petitioner, however, must establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor; it 
cannot suffice for the Petitioner to establish the overall importance of a particular subject, occupation, 
or field. The te1m "endeavor" is more specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer 
details not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person 
proposes to unde1iake specifically within that occupation. See, generally, 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.5(D)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. The importance of an entire field or industry does 
not establish the national importance of one company within that field or industty. 
Much of the discussion on appeal under the heading "The Proposed Endeavor's National Importance" 
concerns the Petitioner's background and experience. These factors, however, are more relevant to 
4 
the second Dhanasar prong, which concerns whether an individual is well positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to show the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. Detailed discussion of the remaining Dhanasar prongs cannot 
change the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, we reserve argument on the second and third prongs. 2 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as 
a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 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 olL-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). 
5