dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24227567 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 13, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) instructor, 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 the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. The 
Director denied a subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then 
establish that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&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 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) . 
• 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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional. The remaining issue to be determined is whether he has established eligibility for a 
national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 3 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on "the specific endeavor the 
individual proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. Id. 
The Petitioner initially provided the following goals for furtherance of his work in the United States 
under this eligibility classification: 
• Building IT skills needed for increasing employability, sustaining family income, and 
reducing crime rates among youth; 
• Closing the IT digital divide among the U.S. populace and protecting American jobs; 
• Training a new generation of workers capable of defending, securing, and protecting 
networks and infrastructures, user data, and cyberspace in its entirety; and 
• Advancing the development of communities through an educated workforce. 
The Petitioner also initially provided the following summary of his work and intentions in the U.S.: 
In order to keep pace with the increasing demand for IT personnel and Cyber Security 
professionals, it is important for the US nation to retain and allow highly efficient and 
exceptionally capable IT Technical Instructors like myself in this country. As IT 
trainers, working behind the scene, our goals and objectives is to produce competent 
and disciplined IT personnel who go to various sectors of the economy, carrying with 
them the seed we planted, and use that seed to grow and strengthen the nation. 
From the time I was working as a Graduate Teaching Assistant in my former school 
until now, I have been providing quality practical and theoretical training to several 
numbers of Americans in the area of Networking and Cyber Security, among others. 
My impact is not only limited to DC-Maryland-Virginia alone, but every student I 
trained will take the skill and knowledge to other parts of the USA and help in building 
the economy and securing the nation. 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
The Director requested additional evidence to establish the Petitioner's qualifications under the 
Dhanasar framework, stating that the overall description of the proposed endeavor was "too general 
and vague." The Director requested evidence to clarify the Petitioner's endeavor and to demonstrate 
the endeavor's potential prospective impact. The Petitioner responded by emphasizing that the 
organization for which he has been employed, I I, has trained and assisted individuals in 
obtaining jobs for over twenty-one years, and he provided evidence of grants received by the 
organization from JP Morgan Chase, the American Heart Association, Microsoft, and the District of 
Columbia's Department of Employment Services & Workforce Investment Council. After review of 
the entirety of the record, the Director determined that the Petitioner has established that the proposed 
endeavor meets the substantial merit portion of the first prong set forth in the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. However, the Director determined that the Petitioner has not established the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the explanation of the Petitioner's 
endeavor remained vague and that the evidence did not show that the proposed endeavor had broader 
implications for the IT field. 
On motion, the Petitioner provided documentation of teaching materials and learning tools that he 
created, as well as testimonials and job offer letters from [ I students who went on to 
employment in IT positions. The Director maintained that, although the documentation of educational 
material and resources appeared to be new evidence, the nature of the evidence had not changed; the 
Director concluded that while the evidence demonstrated that the Petitioner is a well-established 
professional in his field, the record did not show the potential national impact of the endeavor as 
described. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates the merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor. He 
anecdotally highlights the potential impact of low- or no-cost education in the fields of science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) on economically depressed regions in the U.S. 
Although I offers training programs and operates as a certified testing center that administers 
IT certification exams, the Petitioner asserts that the expanded availability of education offered 
through I I would support the White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, 
Excellence, and Economic Opportunity Through Historically Black Colleges and Universities. 4 While 
the Petitioner's IT instructor role has substantial merit, he has not sufficiently defined his endeavor to 
show how his continued role as an IT instructor will have a broader impact of national importance in 
the field ofIT or STEM education. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 
"specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id at 889. Dhanasar provided 
examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first prong, having 
"national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that have broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
4 See https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/DCPD-202100714 (last visited March 10, 2023). 
3 
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. Similarly, the 
record here does not establish that the Petitioner's IT instructor role would impact the IT or STEM 
industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the students he teaches . Further, he has not 
demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the U.S. Therefore, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Because the identified basis for dismissal is 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 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 that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver. 
Thus, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4