dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 08, 2024 In Re: 29248108 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification, 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for or otherwise merits 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 discretion1, 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 
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). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established his eligibility as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree.2 However, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish that a 
waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Director found that while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, 
he did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, as required by the first prong 
of the Dhanasar analytical framework. The Director further found that the record does not satisfy the 
second or third Dhanasar prongs. Upon de nova review, we agree with the Director's determination 
that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a waiver of the labor certification would be in the national 
interest. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor a petitioner 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 of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner indicated in his Form 1-140 that he intended to be a computer and information system 
manager. He explained that he proposes to continue working for two businesses he co-founded in 
Florida. The first business.I Iwas established in 2014 and is described as a natural 
disaster restoration business for which the Petitioner has been its chief executive officer overseeing 
the business' operations. The business specializes "in managing and addressing all types of pre and 
post natural disaster restoration projects through the implementation of new automated systems and 
custom technologies." The Petitioner describes being "the brains behind the development of new 
systems and technologies, as well as the implementation of all new tools and methods." 
The second busi ness,~-------~ is described as an information technology solutions 
business established in 2019, for which the Petitioner would be its chief executive officer and 
intellectual mentor of products and solutions. Its business plan explains that the business would 
mainly provide information technology consultation services to improve the efficiency of companies 
in automobile sales, restoration services, and condominium property management. The business 
would also provide the Petitioner's newly designed moisture remediator sensor,~------~ as well as its other information technology products. The business plan explains that based on the 
business' current clients and the anticipated growth of the restoration industry, the business intends to 
expand in its second year to the U.S. national market and in its third year to the Canadian and European 
markets. 
The Petitioner descr ibes~------~a s "a central box unit that constantly tracks, collects, 
analyses [sic] information from various sensors located around the worksite and transmits it to project 
managers remotely by L TE/4G/5G, Wi-fi modem sending and receiving Text Message or file transfer 
and record [sic] the information on a MicroSD." The Petitioner further states, "The information being 
2 The record establishes that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, and that he has at least 
five years of progressive, post-baccalaureate experience in his specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
2 
collected includes critical aspects of any construction worksite and alerts the project managers when/if 
they exceed acceptable safety levels.... This data collection and analysis has always been done by 
the people at the worksite, ... and inevitably lended itself vulnerable to human errors." The Petitioner 
contends the I I eliminates "the need for human presence at the most dangerous 
worksites like post hurricane and earthquake locations, as well as improving the reliability of the data 
gathered and analyzed. In sum, the I Iimproves worksite and workers safety, 
reduces cost of labor and time, and improves the quality and analysis of this critical data." 
The business plan indicates that the business would also offer three technology products: Smart 
Tracking, Logistics Tracking, and Good Investment, which are delivered through two technology 
products developed by the business, ~------------~ is described as an 
inventory tracker "providing real-time information fetched by radio-frequency identification tags ... 
to track the precise location of equipment, materials, work-in-progress, and finished goods." The 
business plan states thatl Iwould provide "unique insights into customer opinion as a social 
media tool specially designed to infonn on topics pertinent to the client's brand, such as customer 
perception." The product helps companies with their competitive strategy empowering them "to better 
manage crises in real-time, anticipate customer needs, as well as predict future trends based on past 
performance and analysis." 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit. 
With respect to the national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Director found that "the 
[P]etitioner has not shown how his proposed endeavor in this case stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
the organization, its clients, and the individuals the [Petitioner] would serve to impact the industry or 
field more broadly." The Director stated that the Petitioner did not "demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance" or "that the specific 
endeavor he proposed to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise 
offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation." Therefore, the Director found that the 
Petitioner did not meet his burden in establishing the national importance element of the first prong of 
the Dhanasar framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director misapplied the preponderance of the evidence 
standard and erred in the analysis of the three Dhanasar prongs. The Petitioner's appeal focuses on 
his work with his new business,~-------~ He contends, "[T]he national importance of 
the [P]etitioner's proposed endeavor resides among other things in providing value to the community 
through services, community outreach, and by creating well-paying jobs." The Petitioner further 
argues that this business' technology "will help clients across the U.S. to accelerate their growth, cut 
costs, mitigate risk, and streamline important processes" aiding in the longevity and growth of these 
businesses. The Petitioner argues that his work aiding in the growth of companies will have a national 
impact by driving innovation and diversity of services; supporting the manufacturing industry; 
introducing new technology to the U.S. market; transferring his professional knowledge to the U.S. 
market; and contributing to U.S. government initiatives related to field of science, technology, 
engineering, and math (STEM), entrepreneurship, and small businesses. The Petitioner also stresses 
his proposed endeavor would have economic benefits to the local and U.S. economies through job 
creation and generating tax revenue. The Petitioner argues that the evidence in the record, including 
his company's business plan and reports and articles, demonstrate the national importance of his 
3 
proposed endeavor. Upon de nova review, we find the record does not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance element of Dhanasar's first prong. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed his evidence to evaluate 
the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of evidence. 
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. See Dhanasar, 26 
l&N Dec. at 889. The business plan for.__ _______ _.describes the business and the 
products and services it offers to its clients. The business plan explains that the business intends to 
focus on providing its products and services to automobile sales companies, restoration companies, 
and condominium property management companies due to the expected demand for information 
technology services for these businesses. The business plan also describes the Petitioner's 
professional experience, including his work with his other company,,________ __.the location 
of the business' office in I I Florida; the expected economic growth of the information 
technology consulting industry in the United States; the need for the business' products and services; 
and the business' marketing strategy, projected personnel, and financial forecasts. 
As argued in the appeal, the business plan contends that through technological changes, "clients will 
be generously rewarded with increased production levels, higher profit margins, and reduced 
downtime and overall inefficiency." The business plan also describes the business' potential national­
level impact argued in the appeal, including: the business' support ofthe U.S. manufacturing industry; 
its introduction of new technologies to the U.S. market; its contributions to important U.S. government 
initiatives related to entrepreneurship, small businesses, and the field of science, technology, 
engineering, and math (STEM); its transferring the Petitioner's professional knowledge to his 
employees and clients; and its contributions to the growth of the U.S. economic and socioeconomic 
development through job creation, generating taxes, and promoting innovation. 
The Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence supporting the claims in the 
business plan. 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, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor with his business, 
will substantially benefit the field of information technology, as contemplated~-------~ 
by Dhanasar: "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or 
even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. at 889. The evidence does not suggest that the 
Petitioner's information technology services business would impact the information technology field 
more broadly or provide the claimed economic benefits to the United States. 
Besides general assertions, the record does not show that the business' proposed information 
technology services and products would provide innovations in the field or economic benefits beyond 
4 
the business and its clients. Although the Petitioner expresses his desire to contribute to the U.S. 
economy and to support innovations in the information technology field, he has not established with 
specific, probative evidence that his endeavor will have broader implications in his field, will have 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or will have other substantial positive economic or 
societal effects to the United States. The Petitioner's claims that his information technology services 
business has the potential to have a national impact have not been established through independent 
and objective evidence. 
The record includes marketing materials and a patent application for one of the business' products, 
However, the record does not support the Petitioner's claims relating to the 
design, use, and successes of the product, or the potential prospective impact of his business' other 
technology products. The Petitioner's statements are not sufficient to demonstrate his endeavor has 
the potential to provide economic and socio-economic benefits. The Petitioner must support his 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 
376. 
The business plan projects that in its fifth year, the business will have created 13 jobs and will be 
paying almost a million dollars in wages. However, the record does not sufficiently detail the basis 
for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized. 
Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the record lacks evidence 
showing that creating 13 jobs and paying almost one million dollars in wages by its fifth year in 
business rises to the level of national importance. Also, without sufficient documentary evidence that 
his proposed job duties as an owner, the chief executive officer, and the intellectual mentor of products 
and solutions for his business would impact the information technology industry more broadly, rather 
than benefiting his business and his proposed clients, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a 
preponderance of the evidence that his proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
The Petitioner further claims national importance of his proposed endeavor based on industry reports 
and articles. The Petitioner argues the reports and articles demonstrate a need for information 
technology professionals and that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would contribute to nationally 
important U.S. government initiatives supporting STEM professionals, entrepreneurs, and small 
businesses. He argues that his proposed endeavor would help the United States fill the need for STEM 
professionals and, as an entrepreneurial endeavor, it will create ripples of positive economic impact. 
The reports and articles describe the shortage of information technology workers; the growth of the 
information technology industry; the importance of entrepreneurs to the U.S. economy; workplace 
safety for natural disasters; emergency response resources for disaster site management; mold in the 
workplace; temperature and humidity; indoor environmental quality; and the industry of car 
dealerships and the expected demand for cars in the United States. 
We recognize the importance of the 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 important to U.S. competitiveness or national security." 3 "With respect to the first 
[Dhanasar] prong, as in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance. Many proposed endeavors that aim to advance STEM 
technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, ... have sufficiently broad 
3 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
5 
potential implications to demonstrate national importance." 4 However, the Petitioner has not 
established that his proposed endeavor aims to advance STEM technologies or research. Also, the 
record does not show that his proposed endeavor would have an impact in a STEM field more broadly 
to establish its national importance. 
We also recognize the importance of small businesses and entrepreneurs to the U.S. economy, and the 
contributions from immigrants who have become successful entrepreneurs. However, being an 
immigrant working in the United States in the information technology or restoration fields or starting 
an information technology services business for automotive dealers, condominium property 
management companies, and restoration businesses, is insufficient to establish the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor. Instead, of focusing on the importance of small businesses to the U.S. 
economy or the need for workers in the United States in the information technology or restoration 
fields, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&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. 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. The articles submitted do not establish any 
projected economic impact specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
To further demonstrate the national importance of his endeavor, the record includes an o inion from 
I !adjunct professor at the.___________________ _. 
in I I New York. The opinion claims that the Petitioner's work with his businesses would 
positively impact the renovation industry, the U.S. economy, the welfare of American people, and 
U.S. government initiatives related to national disaster recovery. 
The opinion explains the importance of people having access to restoration services to quickly and 
efficiently repair homes damaged from natural disasters. Due to the increased frequency of natural 
disasters, the opinion explains that restoration professionals are in high demand and that the 
Petitioner's businesses would help fill the need for restoration professionals. The opinion also stresses 
the negative health effects of people living in poor housing, and that the Petitioner's restoration 
business would indirectly contribute to the physical and mental health of persons needing home 
repairs. The opinion also indicates that the Petitioner's work in the restoration field contributes to 
helping U.S. government initiatives supporting the preparation, response, and recovery from natural 
disasters. The opinion claims that such government initiatives show the national importance of the 
restoration industry, and that the Petitioner's restoration work is important given its direct relation to 
supporting recovery from natural disasters. 
However, the opinion's focus on the Petitioner working in an important industry which has a need for 
professionals, instead of focusing on the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, does not establish the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor. The opinion briefly mentions the Petitioner's intent to 
"continue to develop innovative technologies ~ like thel I'; however, it does not 
describe details of the product and how it has the potential to have a prospective impact on the 
restoration or information technology industries. 
4 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(2). 
6 
The opinion also indicates that the Petitioner will "help stimulate significant economic growth and the 
creation of innumerable employment opportunities" through his businesses. The opinion generally 
describes the economic "ripple effects" from the construction industry and the expected economic 
growth of the restoration industry. Based on the Petitioner's professional experience and the expected 
growth of the restoration industry, the opinion indicates that the Petitioner has demonstrated the 
potential growth of his businesses and the bolstering of the U.S. economy. However, the opinion 
provides general assertions about the expected economic growth of the Petitioner's businesses and its 
benefits to the U.S. economy without providing a basis for the assertions. Also, the opinion's focus 
on the Petitioner's restoration knowledge and experience does not show the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor, but instead relates to the second Dhanasar prong. 
The Petitioner does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor extends beyond his business or his 
clients to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. The economic and socio-economic benefits that the 
Petitioner claims depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct 
evidentiary tie between his information technology services work and the claimed results. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently 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 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 second and third prongs. 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 
(BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
111. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as amatter 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. 
7