dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 20, 2024 In Re: 30586360 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner proposes to establish an information technology (IT) consulting business in the United 
States. He seeks classification under the employment-based, second-preference (EB-2) immigrant 
visa category and a waiver of the category's job-offer requirement. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) has discretion to excuse job offers in this category - and, thus, related requirements 
for certifications from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) - if petitioners demonstrate that waivers 
of these U.S.-worker protections are "in the national interest." Id. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner demonstrated his eligibility for the EB-2 category as a member of the professions holding 
an "advanced degree." See section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. But the Director found that the Petitioner 
did not warrant a national interest waiver. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that, in finding 
insufficient evidence of the proposed endeavor's "national importance," the Director did not 
objectively evaluate the entire record. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Exercising de novo appellate review, 
see Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015), we agree with the Director that 
the Petitioner has not established the claimed national importance of his proposed undertaking. We 
will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for national interest waivers, petitioners must first demonstrate their 
qualifications for the EB-2 category, either as advanced degree professionals or noncitizens of 
"exceptional ability" in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. To protect 
the jobs of U.S. workers, this category usually requires prospective employers to offer noncitizens 
jobs and to obtain DOL certifications to permanently employ the individuals in the country. See 
section 212(a)(5)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(D). Petitioners may avoid the job offer/labor 
certification requirements by demonstrating that waivers of the U.S.-worker protections would be in 
the national interest. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Neither the Act nor regulations define the term "national interest." So, to adjudicate these waiver 
requests, we have established a framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889-91 (AAO 
2016). If otherwise qualified as advanced degree professionals or noncitizens of exceptional ability, 
petitioners may warrant waivers of the job-offer/labor certification requirements by demonstrating 
that: 
• Their proposed U.S. work has "substantial merit" and "national importance;" 
• They are "well positioned" to advance their intended endeavors; and 
• On balance, waivers of the job-offer/labor certification requirements would benefit the United 
States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The record shows that the Petitioner, a Brazilian native and citizen, earned a bachelor's degree in 
information systems in his home country in 2011. Until 201 7, he worked as a systems analyst in 
Brazil. 
Now in the United States, the Petitioner seeks to establish an IT consultancy here specializing in 
helping small- and medium-sized businesses boost their productivity and profits. The Petitioner states 
that he would serve as the consultancy's chief executive officer and lead IT consultant. He states that 
the business would start with six employees, expanding by its fifth operating year to 25 workers. The 
Petitioner estimates that, over the same period, the business's revenues would increase from $630,000 
to $2,901,400. 
B. EB-2 Qualifications 
The record supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional. He submitted evidence that his Brazilian bachelor's degree equates to 
a U.S. baccalaureate in information systems. He also demonstrated that he gained at least five years 
of post-baccalaureate experience in the IT field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining the term 
"advanced degree" to include a "United States bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty"). 
C. Substantial Merit 
The record also supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. A proposed undertaking may have substantial merit whether it "has the potential to create a 
significant economic impact" or it relates to "research, pure science, and the furtherance of human 
knowledge." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner submitted evidence that his 
endeavor would generate revenues, create jobs, and help to ease a U.S. shortage of IT professionals. 
We therefore agree that the proposal has substantial merit. 
2 
D. National Importance 
When determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, USCIS must focus on the 
particular venture, specifically on its "potential prospective impact." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. "An undertaking may have national importance, for example, because it has national or 
even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. A nationally important venture may even focus 
on only one geographic area of the United States. Id. at 889-90. "An 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. 
The Director found insufficient evidence that the Petitioner's proposed business would have a national 
impact. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the proposed venture's effect 
beyond itself and its customers. 
The record supports the Director's findings. The Petitioner has not explained how his business's 
estimated generation of about $2.9 million in revenues and its employment of 25 people would 
substantially boost the national economy. He also has not shown that the consultancy would operate 
in an economically depressed area. Further, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his business 
would significantly advance or otherwise affect the national IT field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers and generate other substantial positive economic benefits. He states that he can develop 
"strong relationships" with owners of small- and medium-sized businesses who need to outsource their 
IT functions and that he will help the United States "improve" its IT workforce, in part, by reaching a 
broad audience through seminars, lectures, courses, and classes. 
The Petitioner also contends that his proposed endeavor would enhance U.S. social welfare. He states 
that his venture would help businesses of all sizes and industries improve their efficiency and enhance 
their profits. By helping businesses boost their productivity and profits, the Petitioner states that his 
enterprise would spur job creation and increase tax revenues. 
But the record does not sufficiently support the Petitioner's assertions. He states that his business 
would geographically expand to other U.S. states within five years. But his employment and revenue 
projections do not indicate that his venture would have the size or scope to substantially affect the 
national economy. 
The Petitioner also contends that the U.S. government considers IT ventures like his to be nationally 
important. He cites the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which authorizes increased investments 
in national infrastructure, including broad-band installations for reliable high-speed Internet service 
across the country. The Petitioner states that he can guide infrastructure workers in the IT sector. 
The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that the infrastructure law would affect his proposed 
consultancy. The record does not indicate that the business would install or provide Internet service. 
Also, even if the law affected the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner has not established that the 
business would have the size or scope to substantially improve U.S. Internet service. 
3 
The Petitioner's case resembles one of the proposed endeavors in Dhanasar. There, we found that a 
plan to teach university courses in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 
disciplines had substantial merit. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. But we held that the 
proposed venture lacked national importance because the record did not demonstrate that the teaching 
"would impact the field of STEM education more broadly." Id. 
As in Dhanasar, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to provide IT consulting services has substantial 
merit. But, also as in Dhanasar, the record does not establish that the business would affect the IT 
field or the national economy "more broadly." 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has national 
importance. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
E. The Remaining Waiver Requirements 
Our decision regarding the proposed endeavor's national importance resolves this appeal. Thus, like 
the Director, we need not reach, and therefore reserve, consideration of whether the Petitioner is "well 
positioned" to advance his venture or whether a waiver would benefit the United States. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant did not otherwise 
meet their burden of proof). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has national importance. The Director 
therefore properly denied the national interest waiver request and, for lack of a job offer, the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4