dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 26376363 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 26, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) project manager, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
and/or an individual of exceptional ability, 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 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 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 tenn "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: 
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 the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification. Therefore, the 
remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the 
Dhanasar framework. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed 
and considered each one. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 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 l&N Dec. at 889. 
In his professional plan and statement, the Petitioner set forth his intention to deliver high-impact 
technological solutions as an IT project manager. In response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE), he explained his proposed endeavor involves running his own IT business in Florida. While 
the Petitioner provided details regarding his planned employment, the evidence does not sufficiently 
establish the national importance of the endeavor. Specifically, the Petitioner has not established that 
the benefit of his services will extend beyond his clients, company, and/or employer. Further, he 
submitted little evidence to establish how his specific endeavor would influence the IT field or 
otherwise impact the nation. For instance, the record does not reflect that his services are different, 
better, or cost less than other IT services, nor has the Petitioner presented evidence to establish his 
services would be available on a scale that rises to the level of national importance. 
Documents in the record mention that the Petitioner will offer benefits to the United States through 
foreign direct investment, as well as that he could offer benefits to businesses conducting or planning 
to conduct business in Brazil. While we acknowledge these claims, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
explained how his IT services in Florida would involve those activities to such an extent that it impacts 
the field of IT or the nation as a whole. 
The Petitioner referenced a nationwide shortage of IT and Science Technology Engineering 
Mathematics (STEM) professionals, the monetary value of the IT industry, its growth potential, and 
the importance ofIT work to the nation's economy. In support, he submitted articles and reports that 
provide helpful background information on these matters. However, none of the reference materials 
discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. We acknowledge the impmiance of IT and STEM 
fields, and also of addressing the nation's shortage ofIT professionals; however, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained how his work as an IT project manager and entrepreneur would resolve the 
shortage or produce an impact rising to the level of national importance. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which the individual will work; but rather, "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." See id. Other relevant questions are what the broader implications of 
2 
the proposed endeavor are and how the endeavor may have national importance, for example, because 
it has national or even global implications within a particular field. Here, the Petitioner improperly 
relies upon the importance of the industry as sufficient to establish the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's business plan in which he described his vision, mission, and the services 
he will provide. He provided five-year growth projections in income, salary payment, and tax revenue. 
He also explained that his services will make his clients more efficient and productive such that their 
businesses will positively contribute to the economy as well. However, the Petitioner has not provided 
a sufficient foundation or corroborating details to support the growth projections he provided in his 
business plan. As such, these figures appear to be little more than conjecture. 
The Petitioner asserted he will bring benefits to areas of economic depression. In support, he cited 
poverty statistics for various counties in Florida. Even if these poverty statistics evidenced economic 
depression in those areas, the Petitioner has not explained how the benefits of his endeavor would 
reach these counties. For instance, the Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence showing that 
the physical location of his business will be in one of these counties such that it might readily provide 
a source of jobs, nor has he demonstrated that he will predominantly or exclusively hire and serve 
individuals living in those areas. Therefore, we cannot conclude the Petitioner's endeavor offers 
substantial positive economic effects in an economically depressed area. 
Although the Petitioner highlighted that his endeavor would positively impact the economy, tax 
revenue, and job creation, he has not offered sufficient evidence to corroborate these claims. We 
acknowledge the Petitioner's argument that through his services, the companies that hire him can be 
more productive in providing services to others and that the benefits of a productive, well-functioning 
business extend beyond the individual organization. However, the record lacks sufficient evidence to 
establish a strong connection between the proposed endeavor activities and job creation or tax revenues 
on a level commensurate with 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. Similarly, the proposed endeavor may very well positively 
impact the individuals and businesses that engage the Petitioner for his services, but the evidence does 
not suggest the Petitioner's services will be available broadly to the public or on a level that creates 
national or global implications in the IT field. 
While any basic economic activity, including entrepreneurial endeavors and IT services, has the 
potential to positively impact the economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic 
activity his proposed endeavor generates will rise to the level of affecting the U.S. economy. Without 
sufficient information or evidence regarding any 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 services would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has 
national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such 
claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. 
See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
3 
We reviewed the letters of recommendation in which the authors praise the Petitioner's expertise, work 
ethic, and the successful results he achieved for his employer, their clients, and on specific projects. 
However, these letters do not discuss the proposed endeavor or provide specific details on its national 
importance. Furthermore, they do not demonstrate that the Petitioner impacted the IT field or the 
nation as a whole. Therefore, the letters do not offer support for a conclusion that the proposed 
endeavor has national importance. 
In his brief on appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director violated his due process rights "by issuing a 
denial without warranting [sic] the Appellant the opportunity to present additional evidence and cure 
any questions raised by the adjudicating Officer .... " However, in the same brief, the Petitioner 
acknowledges receipt of an RFE and references his response to it. Furthermore, the Petitioner's RFE 
response states, "[a]ccording to your RFE letter, the evidence is insufficient to establish [the 
Petitioner's] proposed endeavor and whether it has substantial merit and national importance." 
Accordingly, we conclude the Petitioner had an opportunity to present additional evidence and address 
identified deficiencies. As such, it is not apparent how the Director deprived the Petitioner of his due 
process rights. 
Also on appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director did not duly consider certain pieces of evidence 
and failed to apply the correct standard of proof when reviewing the evidence. In support, he relies 
primarily upon the evidence and arguments previously submitted. The Petitioner emphasizes that 
Dhanasar does not state that a proposed endeavor must create a significant number of jobs but rather 
must only have a significant potential to employ U.S. workers. While we acknowledge the distinction, 
the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to establish his endeavor's potential is significant. 
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. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs 
outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
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 "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). 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar framework, we conclude he has 
not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. The appeal will be dismissed for the above 
stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4