dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 12, 2023 In Re: 29607043 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. The matter is now before us on combined 
motions to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Because the scope of a motion is 
limited to the prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). We may grant motions that satisfy the aforementioned requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
In our decision dismissing the appeal, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did not meet the 
first prong of the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 
2016). We explained that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his "proposed endeavor had 
potential prospective impact rising to a level of national importance." 
On motion, the Petitioner indicates that his proposed endeavor is "to work as a Computer Systems 
Engineer and an Entrepreneur in the field of Information Technology (IT) by establishing his own 
business,! I-" He argues that "[t]he Business Plan and Petitioner's 
resume included in the [petition] should have been deemed sufficient to clarify the nature of the 
proposed endeavor." The Director's decision and our appellate decision, however, did not contest the 
clarity of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts that his proposed work the field of information technology (IT) "will 
be able to provide easy access to a wide range of services such as service monitoring, IT help desk, 
network access control and IT training. Such kind of services are required by all businesses now, 
whether small or big, as the world moves on to a digitization phase." He contends that users "has 
incorrectly concluded that the potential impact of [his] proposed endeavor would not meet the 
threshold of national importance." The Petitioner further argues that "despite presentation of 
recruitment contracts, articles, and other supportive evidence," we determined that this documentation 
was "insufficient to endorse the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and to demonstrate its impact to the 
United States." 1 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable IT services to his company's clients, 
he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of 
his proposed endeavor rises to the level of 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 Petitioner has not shown that his 
proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his 
field, the IT services industry, societal welfare, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner also points to his "twenty-five years of experience" providing IT-related services and 
"capability to deliver high quality technical and business solutions." The Petitioner's skills, 
knowledge, and prior work in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance 
under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner asserts that users "overlooked the potential for job creation, a factor 
expressly highlighted as a determinant of national importance. [USeIS] failed to recognize that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor not only has the capacity to create new numerous jobs, but indeed it is 
already doing so." He argues that USeIS' decision "was flawed due to an oversight of these crucial 
elements." 
The Petitioner, however, has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. Specifically, he has not demonstrated that his company's future staffing levels and 
business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or any other region in the 
1 The Petitioner does not explain how the recruitment contracts , articles, and other evidence show that his specific proposed 
endeavor offers broader implications at a level indicative of national importance. 
2 
United States. 2 While the Petitioner claims that his company has growth potential, he has not presented 
evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking 
would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
In addition, although the Petitioner asserts that his endeavor "has the capacity to create new numerous 
jobs," he has not offered sufficient evidence that his endeavor offers Florida or any other U.S. region 
a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity. 
The Petitioner has not offered new evidence or facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds for 
dismissal in our appellate decision. Moreover, he has not demonstrated that our appellate decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy and that our decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision. 
The Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant 
reopening of the proceedings, nor has he shown that we erred as a matter of law or USCIS policy. 
Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, the 
motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)( 4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains 
dismissed, and his underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2 Regarding future staffing, the Petitioner 's business plan anticipated that his company would employ four personnel in 
years one through three and six personnel in years four and five. In addition, his plan offered revenue projections of$399 ,600 
in year one, $459,540 in year two, $528,471 in year three, $924,824 in year four, and $1,202,272 in year five. 
3