dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 06, 2023 In Re: 28082838 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of information technology, seeks second preference 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 immigrant 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 Petitioner qualifies 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but had not established 
that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. 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 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 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 I&N Dec. 884 (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 1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 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 the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 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 initially stated on Form 1-140, Immigrant Petitioner for Alien Workers, that his 
proposed employment is an entrepreneur, and his personal statement describes his endeavor as 
follows: 
I seek employment as an independent business owner in the field of data science, seeking to 
offer my services across the US. This field has been subject of important US government 
initiatives and clearly plays an overall important role in the US economy while experiencing a 
dramatic shortage of professionals. 
The Petitioner's initial description of the proposed endeavor does not provide any other details beyond 
his intention to be an entrepreneur. The Petitioner's initial evidence consisted of his academic records, 
resume, membership in the American Marketing Association, certificates of learning, and four 
reference letters. The Director's request for evidence (RFE) sought further information and evidence 
that the Petitioner meets each of three Dhanasar prongs. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner clarified that his endeavor is to work as "an 
independent business owner in the field of INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY in the United States" 
and introduced a business plan for his own company,! Ilocated in I I 
Florida. In the business plan, the Petitioner stated that he will "help mostly small businesses benefit 
from the use of cutting-edge data analysis tools and techniques." 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance 
under the first prong of Dhanasar. 3 The Director determined that the record does not demonstrate 
how the Petitioner's endeavor stands to have a broader impact on his field or would offer substantial 
economic benefits to the region where it operates or to the nation. We agree with the Director's 
decision. 
On appeal, the Petitioner makes broad assertions that he has established eligibility for all three prongs 
ofDhanasar. Regarding the first prong, the Petitioner contends that "his work has national importance 
for the United States, and USCIS erred in finding otherwise." However, the Petitioner's brief generally 
addresses the importance of data analytics and information technology in small business operations 
and does not identify specific errors in the Director's decision or offer any new evidence. 
2 The Director made this finding in the request for evidence issued on August 26, 2022. 
3 The Director also found that the Petitioner did not meet the second or third prong of the Dhanasar's analytical framework. 
2 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We recognize the 
value of information technology and importance of data analytics to businesses; however, merely 
working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. 
Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first 
prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that have broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of support discussing his knowledge, skills, and work experience. 
However, these documents relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the 
focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. Additionally, these letters do 
not address how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond himself and 
his clients to impact the field or suggest that his data analytics skills somehow differ from or improve 
upon those already available and in use in the United States, 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 Petitioner also submitted a business plan for his consulting company and asserted that his 
company will "stimulate the U.S. economy by creating new jobs and increasing the amount of taxes 
paid." In the plan, the Petitioner stated that his company "currently employs independent contractors 
of various IT profiles" but will expand by employing "numerous professionals, including Data 
Analysts, Data Scientists, machine learning Engineers, Web Developers, Cloud Architects, and 
Software Developers, to name a few." The business plan projects a staff increase from 13 employees 
in 2023 to 91 employees in 2027 and total payroll expenses increase from $1,108,000 in 2023 to 
$8,838,652 in 2027. It also estimates that the company's net profit will increase from $43,232 in 2023 
to $4,906,321 in 2027. 
However, the record does not elaborate on the extent to which his company will have "substantial 
positive economic effects." Id. at 889-90. The Petitioner has not provided any corroborating evidence 
of the nature or numerosity of clients or clients' projects to support the claims he has made in the 
business plan. The record contains only two consulting contracts, one with a company located in the 
United Kingdom, and another contract with a company located in California. Moreover, the Petitioner 
on appeal states that the company yielded a total income of $4,252.10 and a profit of $3,701.32 in 
November 2022, significantly below the net income of $43,232 projected for 2023. The Petitioner has 
not provided persuasive details to corroborate his claims concerning how he intends to grow his 
company. The business plan by itself does not sufficiently demonstrate the basis for its financial and 
staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized. The Petitioner must 
support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 376. 
3 
We acknowledge that any offer of goods or services has the potential to impact the economy; however, 
the record does not support the Petitioner's consulting business inl IFlorida would 
operate on such a large scale that would benefit the U.S. economy or the information technology 
industry rising to the level of national importance. In addition, the record does not demonstrate that 
the company will provide substantial impact to any economically depressed areas in Florida. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. 
Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the 
Petitioner's arguments regarding his eligibility under the second or third prong. 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4