dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 21 , 2024 In Re: 31068651 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) instructor, seeks classification under the employment­
based, second-preference (EB-2) immigrant visa category and a waiver of the category's job-offer 
requirement. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has discretion to excuse job 
offers in this category - and thus related requirements for certifications from the U.S. Department of 
Labor (DOL)- if petitioners demonstrate that waivers of these U.S.-worker protections would be "in 
the national interest." Id. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director found the Petitioner 
qualified for the EB-2 category as a professional holding an "advanced degree." See section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. But the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the merits 
of his national interest waiver request. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director erred in 
finding insufficient evidence of: the "national importance" of his proposed endeavor; and a waiver's 
overall benefit to the United States. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 53 7 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established the claimed national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for national interest waivers, petitioners must first demonstrate their 
qualifications for the EB-2 category, either as advanced degree professionals or noncitizens of 
"exceptional ability" in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. To protect 
the jobs of U.S. workers, this immigrant visa category usually requires prospective employers to offer 
noncitizens jobs and to obtain DOL certifications to permanently employ them in the country. See 
section 212(a)(5)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(a)(5)(D). Petitioners may avoid the job offer/labor 
certification requirements by demonstrating that waivers of the U.S.-worker protections would be in 
the national interest. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Neither the Act nor regulations define the term "national interest." So, to adjudicate these waiver 
requests, we have established a framework. If otherwise qualified as advanced degree professionals 
or noncitizens of exceptional ability, petitioners may warrant waivers of the job-offer/labor 
certification requirements by demonstrating that: 
• Their proposed U.S. work has "substantial merit" and "national importance;" 
• They are "well positioned" to advance their intended endeavors; and 
• On balance, waivers of the job-offer/labor certification requirements would benefit the United 
States. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889-91 (AAO 2016). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The record shows that the Petitioner, a Nigerian native and citizen, earned a bachelor of technology 
degree in pure and applied physics in his home country in 2011 and a U.S. master of science degree 
in computer science in 2018. Since 2019, he has worked in the United States as an IT instructor and 
adjunct college lecturer. 
The Petitioner works for an urban nonprofit agency that seeks to develop IT workers. He also works 
with an IT and cyber security educational program taught in about 12,000 academies in more than 190 
countries. The Petitioner's duties include developing curricula and designing learning resources for 
students. During the three years before this petition's filing in 2022, he stated that he served more 
than 650 people and families. 
The Petitioner proposes to continue working as an IT instrnctor in the United States. He says he would 
try to close the "IT-skills gap and STEM [science, technology, engineering, mathematics] education 
disparity among the economically depressed, underserved, and underrepresented minority groups." 
B. EB-2 Eligibility 
The record supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional. The Petitioner documented his receipt of a U.S. master of science 
degree in computer science. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining the term "advanced degree" to 
include "any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that 
of baccalaureate"). 
C. Substantial Merit 
The record also supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. A proposed venture may have substantial merit if it "has the potential to create a significant 
economic impact" or relates to "research, pure science, and the furtherance of human knowledge." 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
2 
Evidence indicates that the Petitioner's continued work as an TT instructor could prepare U.S. workers 
for IT careers and provide more minorities with digital skills and STEM education. We therefore 
agree that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
D. National Importance 
When determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, USCIS must focus on the 
particular venture, specifically on its "potential prospective impact." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. "An 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. A nationally important venture may even focus 
on only one geographic area of the United States. Id. at 889-90. "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. 
Noting that the Petitioner's proposed venture closely resembles one we considered in Dhanasar, the 
Director found insufficient evidence that his endeavor would broadly affect the U.S. IT, STEM 
education, or workforce development fields. In Dhanasar, the petitioner proposed teaching courses 
to U.S. university students in STEM disciplines. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. We agreed 
that the endeavor had substantial merit. Id. But we concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate 
the venture' s purported national importance because he did not establish that he "would be engaged 
in activities that would impact the field of STEM education more broadly." Id. Like the petitioner in 
Dhanasar, the Petitioner's continued work as an IT instructor has substantial merit. But also like that 
petitioner, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his activities would "more broadly" affect the IT, 
STEM education, and workforce development fields. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked evidence of U.S. policies favoring 
educational and economic opportunities for minorities and immigrants. The Petitioner notes that 
recent executive orders call for advancement of educational equity and economic opportunities for 
Black students, families, and communities and removal of barriers impeding access to immigration 
benefits and fair, efficient adjudications. See Exec. Order No. 14050, 86 Fed. Reg. 58551 (Oct. 22, 
2021); Exec. Order No. 14012, 86 Fed. Reg. 8277 (Feb. 2, 2021). The Petitioner states: 
I strongly believe that a correlation between the federal government pronouncements 
and all my submissions as related to the proposed endeavor would have helped the 
officer to correctly interpret the significance of my endeavor as being of national 
importance. 
We recognize the importance of educational equity and economic opportunities for immigrants and 
minorities. But, as previously indicated, when considering national importance, we must focus on the 
particular proposed endeavor. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889 ('The first prong, 
substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake.") ( emphasis added). The Petitioner has not demonstrated that, under his 
specific endeavor, he would educate and train enough people to have national implications in the IT, 
STEM education, or workforce development fields. In Dhanasar, the petitioner's proposal to teach 
STEM courses also furthered the government's policy encouraging STEM education. See generally 
3 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(5)(D)(2), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (recognizing the importance of 
progress in STEM fields to U.S. competitiveness and national security). But, looking at the 
petitioner's particular proposed endeavor, we found that the venture would not likely affect the U.S. 
STEM education field broadly enough. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Similarly, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor - despite furthering important 
government policies - would have broad enough implications in his fields. 
The Petitioner contends that his contributions are not limited to "small audiences" and that the 
educational program with which he works recognized him to be of "national and global importance." 
He submitted evidence that, in 2021, the program cited him as among the top l 0% of expert-level 
instructors in the global program. 1 He states: "This achievement is a clear justification that my 
proposed endeavor transcends beyond just a classroom teacher, but rather it has a broader impact on 
the economy by increasing the number of qualifying IT/STEM workers nationally." 
The Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently differentiated his proposed venture from the STEM­
teaching proposal in Dhanasar. By teaching STEM courses to U.S. university students, the petitioner 
in Dhanasar would also have likely increased the number ofIT/STEM workers. The online nature of 
the Petitioner's instruction might allow him to reach more students over a greater geographical area 
than the petitioner in Dhanasar. But the Petitioner has not shown that his proposal materially differs 
from Dhanasar's STEM-teaching proposal. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has national 
importance. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
E. Waiver Benefits 
Our decision regarding the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed venture resolves this 
appeal. Thus, we decline to reach and hereby reserve consideration of his appellate arguments about 
a waiver's benefits to the United States.2 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that 
agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); 
see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate appellate 
issues where a noncitizen did not otherwise qualify for relief). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has national importance. Thus, under 
our framework, he does not qualify for a national interest waiver. We will therefore affirm the 
petition's denial for lack of a valid labor certification. 
1 The Petitioner submits evidence that the program also recognized him as a top instructor for 2022 and that he has 
established his own IT /STEM teaching website. The record, however, indicates that he received the 2022 recognition and 
formed his website after the petition's filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) (requiring a petitioner to establish eligibility "at 
the time of filing the benefit request"). Thus, when reviewing this matter, we cannot consider the 2022 recognition or his 
website. 
2 The Director found the Petitioner well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
4 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5