dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUGUST 22, 2024 In Re: 33572442 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) project manager and entrepreneur, 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 the Petitioner qualified for 
EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but 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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for 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 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 Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85 , 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner submitted a business plan for a company that will develop a parking finder mobile 
application. The Petitioner explains the application will guide drivers to available parking spots in 
real time, reducing the time and stress associated with finding parking, and will benefit cities and 
businesses by optimizing parking space usage and reducing traffic congestion and pollution. The 
Petitioner states 
the company will be initially located in I l Florida and expand to other 
cities. The business plan indicates the Petitioner will be the owner and IT project manager of the 
company. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that he holds the equivalent of a United States bachelor's degree 
and over five years of progressive experience in IT. The Director determined that the Petitioner 
qualified for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. We 
agree. The only issue on appeal is whether he qualifies for and merits a waiver of the job offer 
requirement in the national interest. 
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. 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. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit of 
his proposed endeavor. We agree. 
The Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. 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 sufficiently extend 
beyond an organization and its clients to impact the industry or field more broadly. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director erred and his app will generate jobs for U.S. workers in 
underutilized areas, improve the wages and working conditions for U.S. workers, and help the local 
community bring investments to the region. The Petitioner does not specify what evidence supports 
these claims. The Petitioner's business plan projects his company will employ 4 other individuals in 
its first year of operation, increasing to 3 7 in its fifth year. The plan also projects net income of 
$154,445 in the first year, increasing to $6,370,165 in the fifth year. The plan does not explain the 
2 
basis for these projections but states the smartphone application development industry revenue was 
estimated to be $176.6 billion in 2023. The business plan does not demonstrate that the company's 
projected employment and net income indicate significant potential to employ United States workers 
or other substantial positive economic effects particularly in an industry with estimated revenue of 
$176.6 billion. See id. at 890 (discussing significant potential to employ United States workers and 
other substantial positive economic effects as indicative of national importance). 
The record also does not establish that the Petitioner's company would operate in economically 
depressed areas. Although the Petitioner's business plan states the company would be located in 
HUBZones, as the Director explained, the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's company 
would qualify for the HUBZone program. On appeal, the Petitioner does not address this issue. 
The Petitioner also claims his expertise and skill set "will support U.S. businesses in developing a 
competitive edge in both national and international markets." Again, the Petitioner does not identify 
what evidence supports this claim. It is also unclear what other businesses the Petitioner would be 
supporting as his proposed endeavor is to own and work for one company that will develop a mobile 
parking application. 
The Petitioner cites industry reports and articles he submitted to show that immigrant entrepreneurs 
like the Petitioner "play a vital role in the recovery of the U.S. economy and directly contribute to the 
country's ongoing economic growth." The Petitioner submitted articles on the IT industry, how 
immigration can contribute to leadership in the IT industry, understanding the gaps in the U.S. science, 
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) labor market, IT project management, and how 
international STEM talent is crucial for a robust U.S. economy. We acknowledge the importance of 
these issues. However, our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of 
issues affecting a field or our nation in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Here, none of the articles mention the Petitioner or address 
his company and they do not demonstrate the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor. 
See id. (explaining we consider the proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact when assessing 
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 that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his 
company's clients to impact his field more broadly in a manner indicative of national importance. See 
id. at 889 ( explaining "we look for broader implications"). 
The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ 
United States workers, would have other substantial positive economic effects, or would otherwise 
impact his field more broadly in a manner indicative of national importance. 
C. 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 
3 
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