dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MARCH 7, 2025 In Re: 37287983 
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 an advanced degree professional, 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 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. 
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 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&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: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional because he submitted evidence of his bachelor's degree in computer science and more 
than five years of progressive experience in his field. We agree. The only issue on appeal is whether 
the Petitioner qualifies for a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. 
In his business plan, the Petitioner stated he would establish an information technology (IT) 
consultancy company and serve as its chief executive officer. The business plan explains the company 
will provide information technology services to business entities looking to venture into e-commerce 
retail or digitally transform their enterprises and operations by offering services including e-commerce 
website and application development, third-party integration, site optimization, security enhancement, 
and advice on the implementation of innovative digital solutions. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. Id. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range 
of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. 
The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. We agree. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed endeavor has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other 
substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, or has 
other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. The Director determined the 
Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor would employ a significant population of 
workers, have other substantial economic benefits, or extend beyond his company's clients to have 
broader implications in his field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director did not consider the specific issues and innovative 
solutions proposed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner claims his proposed endeavor has national 
importance because it will establish a secure environment for e-commerce platforms, provide 
innovative solutions for enhancing e-commerce development in the United States, and address the 
growing shortage of skilled IT professionals in the United States. The Petitioner cites his business 
plan as evidence of the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's business plan 
does not support these claims. 
The business plan does not establish that the Petitioner's company's work on e-commerce platforms 
and development has national importance. The business plan states the Petitioner's company "will 
develop a sophisticated, multi-layered protection system that integrates several advanced security 
technologies, such as: Advanced Encryption Methods ... Real-Time Data Monitoring ... Machine 
2 
Leaming-Based Fraud Detection ... Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) ... Blockchain for Data 
Integrity . . . Comprehensive Compliance Framework . . . Customizable Security Protocols . . . [ and] 
User Behavior Analytics .... " The Petitioner also states his company would support e-commerce 
through predictive analytics, machine learning, big data analytics, natural language processing, and 
advanced web development technologies. The record does not establish that any of these technologies 
are unique or innovative or otherwise have national or even global implications in the Petitioner's 
field. See id. ( discussing improved manufacturing processes or medical advances as examples of 
national or even global implications within a particular field). The Petitioner also has not demonstrated 
that his work with these technologies would extend beyond his company's clients to impact his field 
more broadly. See id. (explaining "we look for broader implications"). 
In regard to addressing a shortage of IT professionals, the business plan projects the company will 
employ 6 individuals the first year, increasing to 25 in the fifth year. The record does not demonstrate 
that the company will operate in an economically depressed area and does not establish that the 
employment of up to 25 people is significantly high in the IT field. Although the Petitioner states his 
company will also provide guidance, mentorship, professional training, and ongoing support to 
software engineers, he did not submit evidence of any corresponding employment such efforts would 
secure. Although the business plan projects a net profit of $32,952 the first year, increasing to 
$114,370 in the fifth year, the record does not demonstrate that such profit is significantly high in the 
IT industry or otherwise constitutes a substantial positive economic effect indicative of national 
importance. 
The Petitioner asserts his proposed endeavor "aligns with the national interest by addressing core 
issues in the U.S. economy, including e-commerce security, digital transformation, and the 
development of a skilled IT workforce." The Petitioner also submitted articles on software 
development challenges, how the IT sector powers the U.S. economy, software engineering, e­
commerce, data protection, and data privacy. None of the articles discuss the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor. Moreover, our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a 
field or occupation in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Id. The Petitioner has not shown that his company's work will extend beyond 
its clients and mentees to impact his field more broadly on a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
The Petitioner submitted support letters from past employers who praise his skills and past 
accomplishments, but do not discuss his proposed endeavor. D-F-2 states the Petitioner's business 
plan indicates his company "will provide complex technological solutions, taking into account the 
specifics and niche of each individual client," but does not discuss any impact the Petitioner's company 
would have in his field beyond his service to individual clients. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive 
economic effects, has national or even global implications within his field, or has other broader 
implications indicating national importance. Consequently, the Petitioner does not meet the first 
Dhanasar prong. 
2 We use initials to protect the privacy of the referenced individual. 
3 
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor and he 
does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs of 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 
The 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, he has not demonstrated that he 
is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4