dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 17, 2024 In Re: 33815405 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of information technology, seeks employment-based 
second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Petitioner's Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition 
for Alien Workers, concluding that the Petitioner established his underlying eligibility for EB-2 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability, but that he did not establish he merited a national 
interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F) . 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree of expertise and will 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2) , https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United 
States. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 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, 3 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner is an individual of exceptional ability and therefore 
qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. Thus, the remaining issue to be determined is 
whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner is an entrepreneur in the field of information technology who proposes to build a 
company providing education and consulting services related to technology and business practices. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish any of the three prongs under the Dhanasar 
analytical framework, namely that his proposed endeavor lacked substantial merit and was not 
nationally important; that he was not well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and that on 
balance, waiving the job offer requirement would not benefit the United States. Id. On appeal, the 
Petitioner claims the Director erred in its conclusion, and that he meets all three of the Dhanasar 
prongs and merits a national interest waiver. For the reasons discussed below, we find that the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, regarding 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. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor 
has national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in 
which the individual will work; instead, we consider the proposed endeavor's "potential prospective 
impact," and "look for broader implications" noting that "[a]n undertaking may have national 
3 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." 
Id. Further, "[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 Petitioner provided a statement, through counsel, in support of his Form 1-140 wherein he stated 
his proposed endeavor was to form his own company that provides education and consulting services 
in the information technology and business fields. He described the education services the company 
will provide as including preparatory courses, training programs, seminars, and workshops. The 
services will be provided both in person and online with an emphasis on cultivating a workplace 
culture conducive to professional development, and empowering employees to augment their 
proficiencies in technology, digitization, and business practices. The consultancy services entail the 
Petitioner's provision of expert counsel, guidance, and strategic assistance to attain business 
objectives. He claims that the proposed endeavor is nationally important because it will sustain the 
growth of the information technology field and impact multiple businesses across different sectors, 
employ U.S. workers, contribute to the national economy through generation of taxes, and enhance 
societal welfare through digital transformation and use of ethical business practices. 
The Petitioner also provided a business plan further describing the educational and consulting services 
his company plans to offer. In the plan the Petitioner claims his company will provide services to 
business professionals seeking to increase their knowledge in various areas of technology and business 
and enable them to acquire internationally recognized certifications. In particular, his company will 
provide seminars, workshops, webinars, courses to meet international certifications, in-company 
training, professional certifications, and a tech club. With regard to consulting services, he claims the 
company will provide specialized and individualized services and advice to work directly on a 
company's problems, including integrating the latest technologies, predicting future trends, and 
analyzing current and future technology needs. Overall, he states that the main goals of the company 
are to share best market practices with the technological community, reduce financial loss for 
establishments, and extract the most value from an information technology professional. He claims 
the company will benefit the United States by addressing the talent shortage of information technology 
professionals, disseminating knowledge to remote areas of the country, and generating revenue and 
growth for companies. The company will be established inl Ibut will serve clients in 
any part of the United States through physical and online offerings. Including himself: he plans to 
hire eight employees in the first year of operation, and by year five of operations, claims the company 
will have created 49 jobs. 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted, in part, letters of recommendation and industry articles and 
reports. These submissions generally speak to the Petitioner's character and professional experience, 
and the overall importance of information technology and small businesses in the United States. 
We acknowledge the above evidence which primarily describes the Petitioner's experience in the field 
of information technology, or the overall impact information technology has on the economy of the 
United States. Our focus, however, is on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to 
undertake, rather than his credentials and experience or the importance of the industry or profession 
in which the individual will work. Id. at 889. 
3 
Here, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the education 
and consulting services he intends to provide through his company extend beyond the company's 
specific clientele and thus have broader implications at a level commensurate with national 
importance. Furthermore, he does not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how the specific services 
he proposes to provide offer original innovations to advance, or otherwise have wider implications in, 
the information technology field or the field of information technology education. While teaching 
activities in a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) may have substantial merit, such 
activities alone are not generally indicative of impact in the field of STEM education more broadly. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Additionally, the Petitioner's general assertions regarding 
the contributions his proposed endeavor will make to the national economy, and the unsupported 
projections in his business plan, are insufficient to demonstrate his proposed endeavor is nationally 
important. Finally, even if we were to conclude that the financial projections in the business plan 
regarding revenue growth and job creation are well founded, which we do not, the Petitioner does not 
establish that the revenue or number of jobs created by his proposed endeavor would result in 
substantial positive economic effects or have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, particularly 
in an economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, requiring 
that he demonstrate his proposed endeavor is nationally important. He therefore has not established 
he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
As noted above, the Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor 
had substantial merit, that he was well positioned to advance the endeavor, or that on balance it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification, as are required under the Dhanasar analytical framework. While the Petitioner also 
contests these conclusions on appeal, since our determination that the Petitioner did not establish that 
his proposed endeavor is nationally important is dispositive of his appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the appellate arguments on these issues. 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4