dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 21, 2024 In Re: 34875104 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) executive, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) 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 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 a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the best 
interest. 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 I&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. 
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, 1 grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
1 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
• 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 Petitioner proposes to start and serve as the chief executive officer (CEO) of an IT-focused 
consulting service company, This company aims to "support the growing 
demand for professionals by providing specialized and technical courses, seminars, and workshops to 
improve [i]nformation [t]echnology [c]onsultants' knowledge." 
In the denial decision, the Director determined the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa 
classification as an advanced degree professional. However, the Director found the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver as he did not demonstrate the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor; that he is 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. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, 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. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&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. 
Although the Director found the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Director also determined 
the evidence did not establish its national importance. Specifically, the Director found the submitted 
business plan and other evidence of record did not establish the endeavor would have broader 
implications, or national or global implications, within a particular field; significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers; substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area; broadly enhance societal welfare, or broadly enhance cultural or artistic enrichment. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contests the Director's analysis of the record, contending the denial decision 
disregards both his submitted business plan and articles submitted in support of the petition. However, 
in the denial decision, the Director explicitly references the business plan submitted by the Petitioner 
in stating it "includes industry and market analyses, information about the company and its services, 
financial forecasts and projections, marketing strategies, a discussion of the [P]etitioner's education 
and work experience, and a description of company personnel." The Director further notes the 
business plan anticipates that in its fifth year, will employ 23 individuals, pay 
2 
staff nearly four million dollars in total, and produce revenue exceeding 800 thousand dollars. 
However, the Director finds the Petitioner has not presented sufficient information or evidence of 
substantial positive economic effects attributable to the proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts its business plan numbers are merely projections. We concur with the Director that the record 
does not contain supporting evidence corroborating these projected employment and financial figures, 
as indicated in the business plan, or establish the significant of the data to show the endeavor would 
provide substantial economic benefits to the region or national economy more broadly at the requisite 
level. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director did not acknowledge the link between his submitted 
articles and his proposed endeavor. However, the Director also explicitly references the articles 
submitted by the Petitioner and determined they address only the broader field rather than the 
Petitioner's specific endeavor. We see no error in the Director's determination. The Petitioner 
contends on appeal that IT is a key tool for enhancing the national security of the nation and asserts 
his endeavor touches on both the list of critical and emerging technologies from the White House and 
USCIS-recognized STEM fields. Namely, the Petitioner references advanced computing 
architectures, cloud computing, and cybersecurity. We acknowledge many proposed endeavors that 
aim to advance STEM technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, not only 
have substantial merit in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, but also have sufficiently 
broad potential implications to demonstrate national importance. See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. On the other hand, while proposed 
classroom teaching activities in STEM, for example, may have substantial merit in relation to U.S. 
educational interests, such activities by themselves generally are not indicative of an impact in the 
field of STEM education more broadly and would generally not establish their national importance. 
Id. Here, the Petitioner has not shown his endeavor to improve TT consultants' knowledge through 
courses, seminars, and workshops would advance STEM technologies and research or have broader 
implications rather than providing professional services within a STEM profession. 
The Petitioner also asserts his proposed endeavor is nationally important as it will assist m 
disseminating knowledge to the IT community and help solidify digitization and information 
technology techniques. In Dhanasar, we determined the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to 
the level of national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. 
Here, the Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond the 
individual clients and companies he works with to impact the field of TT more broadly, at a level 
commensurate with national importance. In addition, the Petitioner has explained neither how his 
endeavor would solidify digitization and information techniques nor what the resulting impact would 
be on the field. 
The Petitioner asserts the IT community brings wealth and jobs to the local and state economies while 
supporting other U.S. industries that help this country stay competitive globally. However, as 
discussed above, the Petitioner has not established his proffered data sufficiently demonstrates his 
proposed endeavor would provide substantial economic benefits to the region or national economy. 
And while we acknowledge the economic benefits of the TT industry at large and the invaluable support 
this industry provides for other industries in the economy, in evaluating national importance, the 
relevant query is not the importance of the industry or profession the individual will work, but on the 
specific endeavor the petitioner proposes to undertake. Id. at 889. While any economic activity has 
3 
the potential to positively impact the economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the potential 
economic activity of his specific endeavor stands to create substantial positive economic effects to the 
requisite level. 
B. Additional Dhanasar Prongs 
As our finding on this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and reserve 
the Petitioner's arguments relating to the Director's adverse determinations of her eligibility under the 
additional prongs of 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 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 the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4