dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 26, 2024 In Re: 33408010 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification. The Director further concluded that 
the Petitioner 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&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 establish eligibility for a 
national interest waiver, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of 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 that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and 
1 See also 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner intends 
to work in information technology, starting his own company named 
Florida. The Petitioner stated that he will "provide a comprehensive range of consultancy services for 
allowing ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to deliver highly secure, expandable, value-added voice, 
video, and data services." 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 T&N 
Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not the 
national importance, of the proposed endeavor. In determining national importance, the relevant 
question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, 
we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director's decision did not offer a complete analysis of the 
evidence provided and "simply focuses on some of this evidence without really discussing all the 
relevant contents." 2 The Petitioner asserts that he holds the position of CEO at his current company 
in Brazil and "is characterized by an unwavering commitment to excellence and innovation." 
Although the Petitioner has provided evidence discussing the National Broadband Plan instituted by 
the Federal Communications Commission and contends that his field is included in the National 
Science and Technology Council's list of critical and emerging technologies, the matter here is not 
whether these initiatives, as well as the topics of internet access and network improvement or similarly 
related subjects, are nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national 
importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his services as an information technology 
consultant through his company in thel !Florida area. 
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. 
The Petitioner also contends that his endeavor falls within a STEM (science, technology, engineering, 
or mathematics) profession. With respect to the first prong, as in all cases, the evidence must 
demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. 3 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, 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 See generally 5 USCIS Policy Manual D.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 
but also have sufficiently broad potential implications to demonstrate national importance. 4 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 therefore generally would 
not establish their national importance. 5 Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his endeavor aims to 
advance STEM technologies and research or has broad implications rather than providing his limited 
professional services by working within a STEM profession. 
Moreover, the Petitioner asserts that his "career and experience [have] demonstrated how he has 
impacted the internet access field in Brazil" and discusses his past achievements with his company in 
Brazil. However, the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national 
importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. Here, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his business would largely influence the field and rise to the 
level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined the petitioner's teaching activities did not 
rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. 
Id. at 893. The record does not show through supporting documentation how his endeavor sufficiently 
extends beyond his prospective clients, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, while he provided a business plan for the proposed company, the Petitioner did not present 
any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how his business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible or 
plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. Although the business plan forecasts sales from $528K in year 1 to 
$1.45M in year 5, the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits 
to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Similarly, even though the business plan claims the creation 
of 6 positions in year 1 and 18 positions by year 5, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the relevance of 
these numbers and show that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits 
to the I I Florida region or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance. The Petitioner, for instance, did not establish that such employment figures 
would utilize a significant population of workers in the area or would substantially impact job creation 
and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. For all these reasons, the record does not 
demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having national 
importance or that it would offer substantial positive economic effects. 
3 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis ofthe Petitioner's eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose, as well 
as a review of the Petitioner's qualification for the underlying immigrant classification. 6 
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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 See INS v. Bagamashad. 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessmy to the ultimate decision); see also Matter olL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
4