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: 33398637 
Appeal of Texas 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 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 
national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 1 
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 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. 
1 In a prior appellate decision on this petition, we remanded the matter for the issuance of a new decision by the Director 
of the Texas Service Center. Our order advised that "[t]he matter [wa]s remanded for entry ofa new decision, which - if 
adverse to the Petitioner - shall be certified to us for review." See 8 C.F .R. § l 03 .4(a )( l ), ( 4 ). In issuing their new decision, 
the Director of the Texas Service Center instead advised the Petitioner of his appeal rights, with which he timely complied. 
Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of 
discretion, 2 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• 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 act and offer his services as [a] Computer and 
Information Systems Manager[ ]. .. with a focus on the following areas of business: Accounting; 
Financial; Purchases' Inventory; Costs; Revenues; Budget; Tax and Tax, Patrimony, Contracts: 
Human Resources." To that end, his "primary intention [is] opening a Computer and Information 
Systems Manager business in Florida, generating jobs, conquering his space in the United States of 
America and multiplying his knowledge." He specifically intends to work in the market segments of 
"English schools, pet shop and financial and insurance institutions". 
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. As a threshold matter, the Director determined that the Petitioner 
qualified for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Upon 
de novo review, we disagree and withdraw the Director's determination regarding the Petitioner's 
eligibility for EB-2 classification. The record does not clearly establish the Petitioner has both a 
qualifying degree and at least five years of progressive work experience in the field of his proposed 
endeavor. 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 further address whether he is eligible for the 
EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional or 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 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). 
The Director further 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 as required to establish 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. On appeal, the Petitioner 
argues he is providing 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 
2 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). 
2 
the Petitioner has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework and will dismiss the appeal 
accordingly. 3 
Any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact a local economy; however, 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 business will generate jobs for U.S. workers and positively contribute to the U.S. 
economy. He claims that "the creation of direct and indirect jobs is a vital aspect of [his] business." 
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 by the end of the fifth year in 
business, including the employment of the Petitioner himself. He also claims his business would 
"directly contribute $1,232,200.00 in paid wages in the first 5 cumulative 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 through "its supply chain, job creation, tax contributions, knowledge 
transmission, and consideration of social and environmental impacts". In support of these claims, the 
Petitioner cites data about the importance and impact of consultancy firms generally, and he argues 
his consultancy firm will similarly result in positive contributions to society on local and national 
levels. When determining the national importance of a proposed endeavor, the relevant question is 
not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work; rather, 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 
3 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 
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 
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