dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the
and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office 
Services 
In Re: 26320956 Date: MAY 2, 2023 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a computer user support specialist, 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 . 
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 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 Christa'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, 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. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 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 petitioner shows: 
• 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. 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director's decision did not determine whether the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. Instead, the Director 
only addressed the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. 2 
The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. At initial filing, the Petitioner stated: 
My proposed endeavor consists in [sic] to continue to advance my career in the United 
States contributing to direct, produce, create, and make substantial contributions for the 
improvement of the Information Technology Industry in the United States. As well, [sic] 
as meeting the needs of a market with a deficiency/shortage of qualified and skilled 
professionals in this area oflnformation Technology. 
I will provide my expertise and skills in the market and technical aspects of Information 
Technology. I intend to implement agile methodologies of software analysis and develop 
strategic plans. Ultimately, I will offer intelligent and innovative solutions techniques 
aiming at supporting many U.S. businesses by optimizing processes, reducing costs, 
increasing productivity, enhancing business intelligence, and helping companies operate 
more efficiently. 
I intend to help organizations around the country to implement and improve their entire 
IT system, including analyzing the current system's capabilities, identifying 
improvements needed in the system, and working towards creating an advanced and 
secure system for the organizations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his proposed endeavor falls within science, technology, engineering, 
and mathematics (STEM) fields. Moreover, the Petitioner references the "Information Technology 
Market Outlook in the US" and the "Perspective of the Information Technology Project Managers 
Profession in the USA" The record contains background information relating to the software and 
information technology field, industry reports, and occupational material for computer support specialists. 
The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, 
science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Although the 
Petitioner established the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor, he did not show its national 
importance, discussed below. 
At the outset, the Petitioner stresses his "expertise and skills." However, the Petitioner's experience 
and abilities in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. In determining national importance, 
the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will 
2 Because the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver on appeal, we need not remand the 
decision to the Director in order to make a determination on the underlying immigrant classification. 
2 
work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Although the Petitioner stresses the importance of information 
technology and the computer user support specialist profession, the Petitioner must demonstrate the 
national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of helping organizations rather than the 
importance of information technology and computer user support specialists. 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. 
Moreover, 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, 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 Thus, simply pursuing an endeavor in a STEM field does not automatically demonstrate 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. In this case, the Petitioner does not intend to advance STEM 
technologies and research. Rather, the Petitioner seeks "to help organizations around the country to 
implement and improve their entire IT system." Here, the Petitioner has not established how his 
individual employment would affect information technology employment levels or the U.S. economy 
more broadly consistent with national importance. It is important to note that the shortage of information 
technology specialists and related occupations does not render his proposed endeavor nationally 
important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are directly 
addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
In addition, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. The 
Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate his assertions that the 
prospective impact of continuing his work to assist organizations rises to the level of national 
importance. In Dhanasar, we determined that 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. 
Here, the record does not show through supporting documentation how his specific computer user 
support specialist services stand to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients or organizations, 
to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not show that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without 
3 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://uscis.gov/policymanual. 
4 Id. 
5 Id. 
3 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, 
the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from his 
computer user support specialist position would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his 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 of her eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 6 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he 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. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24. 25 (1976) (stating that ·'courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 
issues in the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4