dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 19, 2024 In Re: 34753112 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) specialist, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 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. § ll 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 visa classification. The Director further concluded the 
record did not support a finding 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 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. Our precedent decision, 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: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth , Eleventh , and D.C. Circuit Courts in concluding 
that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner intends to come to the United States "to establish a Technical Solutions Consultancy 
firm and offer services to small businesses, with a focus on the following areas of business: 
Accounting, Finance, Purchasing, Inventory Costs, Billing, Budgeting, Taxation, Asset Management, 
Contracts, and Human Resources." To that end, he "aims to provide advanced technological solutions 
and process management consultancy services to three main market segments: English schools, pet 
shops, and financial and insurance institutions." Further, as part of his consultancy services, the 
Petitioner plans to offer "budget planning, integrated process management, ERP [(Enterprise Resource 
Planning)] implementation, and business intelligence (BI), among other services." 
The Director determined that the Petitioner does not qualify for EB-2 classification as either an 
individual of exceptional ability or a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and 
further found the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit or 
national importance as required to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the 
Dhanasar framework. The Director specifically concluded the record did not establish the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor would have broad enough impact sufficient to rise to the level of national 
importance. On appeal, the Petitioner argues he did establish eligibility for both EB-2 classification 
and a national interest waiver, and he provided a detailed breakdown of his plans such that USCIS 
should conclude his consultancy work will be of national importance. For the reasons set forth below, 
we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework and will dismiss 
the appeal accordingly. 2 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, the Petitioner must first show that he qualifies for the EB-2 
classification under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, either as an advanced degree professional or an 
individual of exceptional ability. The Director denied the petition, in part, determining that the 
Petitioner did not meet the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. 3 However, as 
discussed below, the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's determination that the record did not 
establish a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. Therefore, we need not address whether he is eligible for the EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability. Since the identified basis for 
denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve this issue. See 
2 If the Petitioner does not meet the first prong, the evidence is dispositive in finding the Petitioner ineligible for the national 
interest waiver, and we need not address the second and third prongs. 
3 We note the Director focused their analysis of the Petitioner's EB-2 eligibility on the connection between his degree and 
his proposed endeavor; however, more relevant, the Petitioner's prior work experience does not appear to be related to his 
proposed endeavor. The Petitioner bears the burden to establish eligibility for EB-2 classification, and the record does not 
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner has five years of post-baccalaureate work experience 
in the same field as his proposed endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(k)(2), (3)(i)(B). 
2 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-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). 
Although any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact a local economy, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity directly resulting from his proposed 
endeavor would rise to the level of national importance. An endeavor may have national importance 
if it "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed area .... " Id. at 890. The Petitioner asserts on 
appeal that his consultancy firm will generate jobs for U.S. workers and positively contribute to the 
U.S. economy. In his business plan and on appeal, the Petitioner indicated his proposed technology 
solutions consulting firm would have the potential to generate "five direct jobs in the first years of 
operation." However, the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these 
projections. Further, even if sufficient basis were provided for the proposed endeavor's revenue and 
job creation projections, these figures do not establish that the Petitioner's company would operate on 
a scale rising to the level of national importance. The Petitioner has not explained how his proposed 
employment metrics would have impact beyond his business's area of intended operations. Upon de 
novo review, we find that the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor would have substantial 
positive economic effects. 
Despite establishing his venture has the potential to provide valuable services to his clients, the 
Petitioner did not establish the specific proposed endeavor will have substantial national implications 
or have a broader impact beyond the individual clients served by his company. On appeal, the 
Petitioner contends he has established that his proposed endeavor will have a significant impact on the 
local and national economy by "increasing operational efficiency", "promoting innovation", and 
"supporting economic development". The Petitioner references numerous potential contributions of 
his business, such as job creation, innovation promotion, and technical skill development, and argues 
his consultancy firm will achieve these goals. He previously submitted a business plan, letters of 
recommendation, and expert opinion letters to support his assertion that his proposed endeavor will 
have a significant, broad impact. When determining the national importance of a proposed endeavor, 
we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. In 
Dhanasar, we further 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. The evidence submitted by the Petitioner does not establish 
his proposed endeavor would operate on such a large scale to have a national impact on any of his 
claimed industries. While we acknowledge the importance of the fields of business and information 
technology, the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor would have broader implications to 
the overall fields to establish its national importance. See id. at 893. 
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, and the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the 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 
3 
which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-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 as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4