dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 15, 2024 In Re: 30336058 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner is an Information Technology (IT) consultant who seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as amember of the professions holding an advanced degree 
as well as a national interest waiver (N IW) 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner merits a discretionary waiver 
of the job offer requirement in the national interest. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to 
demonstrate eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of 
the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We 
review the questions in this matter de nova. Matte r ofChristo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for an NIW, 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 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 NIW petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 
grant an N IW 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. 
The purely discretionary determination of whether to grant or deny an NIW rests solely with USCIS. 
See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining four U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals in 
concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny an NIW to be discretionary in nature). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to establish an IT consulting services business in an unspecified location in 
the United States. In addition, the Petitioner states that her "proposed endeavor is to help U.S. 
businesses achieve optimization and effectiveness through customized solutions, establishment of a 
strong IT infrastructure, and digital transformation." 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 l&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. For example, endeavors 
related to research, pure science, and the furtherance of human knowledge may qualify. Id. 
In her decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit, 
and we agree. Turning to the national importance of her endeavor, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor would have a broader impact on the IT field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director failed to consider all of her proposed endeavor's 
broader implications as shown in her business plan, industry reports, articles, and government 
initiatives.1 Her business plan claims that her endeavor supporting the IT industry will create jobs, 
however the business plan did not make any staffing and revenue projections. Rather, the petitioner 
claimed that her support of the IT industry will generate jobs in the IT sector. The business plan uses 
a multiplier published by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) to assert that 
"for each job created in the local high-tech sector, approximately 4.4 jobs are created in the local non­
tradable sector in the long run." Importantly however, these employment projections are not supported 
by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be realized, nor do they demonstrate 
how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to 
substantially impact the regional or national economy. Specifically, the record does not support that 
the proposed endeavor's direct creation of any full-time jobs or that the expected revenue generated 
by the proposed endeavor will have a substantial economic benefit commensurate with national 
importance as contemplated by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
In addition, the business plan highlights the Petitioner's more than two decades of experience to 
establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor. However, the Petitioner's expertise and 
record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national importance 
of her proposed work. 
1 We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that there was a misplaced closing quotation mark in the Director's decision. 
However, this scrivener's error was not prejudicial. 
2 
Moreover, through industry reports and articles, the Petitioner emphasized the importance of the IT 
industry. We agree that the field of IT is important, and that success in the field may lead to greater 
economic advantages. However, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 
889. 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. While the Petitioner proposes to work in an important 
industry or field, this is not necessarily sufficient to establish the national importance of the specific 
proposed endeavor. Regardless, the articles and reports do not discuss any particulars of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its prospective impact rising to the level of national importance. 
In Dhanasar, we determined 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. Likewise, the 
Petitioner has not established how providing her IT consulting services stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond her clients to impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
We also reviewed the September 2022 expert opinion letter from a university professor in the field of 
computer science, information systems, and cyber-security at _______ The author 
discusses the Petitioner's skills and abilities as an IT professional and speculates on how her services 
can potentially improve the IT sector and improve productivity of companies but does not offer any 
persuasive detail concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how her endeavor's impact would 
extend beyond the companies that she will serve. Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted 
in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a foreign 
national's eligibility. The submission ofletters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter of D-R-, 25 l&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) 
(discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, reliability, and 
the overall probative value). 
111. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. Because 
this identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the third Dhanasar prong.2 See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally 
2 The Director found that the Petitioner met the second Dhanasar prong, being well-positioned to advance her proposed 
endeavor. 
3 
required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of D­
L-S-, 28 l&N Dec. 568, 576-77 n.10 (BIA 2022) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). As such, the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's 
conclusion regarding this issue. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4