dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APRIL 26, 2024 In Re: 29339731 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of information technology (IT) education, seeks 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of 
exceptional ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 visa classification and that a discretionary 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. 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, 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. Because 
this classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate 
showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 
thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner demonstrates 
that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the 
noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that on balance it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, in light of the nature of the 
noncitizen's qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen 
to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that 
other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's 
contributions; and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent 
to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, 
indicate that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job 
offer and thus of a labor certification. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as an entrepreneur in the IT education field. The 
Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that he qualified for the underlying classification. The Director also found that the Petitioner 
failed to establish a discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. 
1 See also 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not qualify for the EB-2 classification as an advanced 
degree professional nor as an individual of exceptional ability. The Director determined that the 
evidence submitted did not establish that the Petitioner has at least five years of progressive post­
baccalaureate experience, and that the record lacked evidence that the Petitioner meets at least three 
of the six criteria found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erroneously denied the petition. The Petitioner 
further contends that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof and instead imposed a 
stricter standard. The Petitioner also highlights the evidence submitted in support of the petition and 
on appeal to underscore the sufficiency of the submitted evidence. He maintains that the evidence 
demonstrates that he meets at least three of the six criteria, is eligible as an individual of exceptional 
ability, and that his proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
The resolution of the issues pertaining to the Petitioner's eligibility for a waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus of a labor certification, under the Dhanasar analytical framework are dispositive 
of this appeal. For that reason, we will reserve consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility for the 
requested EB-2 category. 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 
of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal in 
removal proceedings where an applicant did not otherwise qualify for relief). 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. The 
Director determined, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor is of national 
importance, that he is well-positioned to advance it, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United 
States to waive the job offer requirement. On appeal, the Petitioner disagrees with the Director's 
determination and claims that his business plan and industry reports demonstrate the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence 
individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
As previously noted, the first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor the noncitizen proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range 
of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 
The record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to operate his business, 
__________ that provides IT related training and online courses. He claims that he 
will make a significant impact to the U.S. economy by offering educational courses, improving 
workforce skills, and making a positive contribution. He further asserts that the courses and training 
3 
programs he intends to offer have the potential to attract individuals from diverse backgrounds, 
including those from disadvantaged areas, thus indirectly providing economic benefits to those 
reg10ns. 
In denying the pet1t10n, the Director concluded that the submitted evidence was insufficient to 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is nationally important. The Director also 
determined that the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor has broader implications, has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers, and that it would broadly enhance societal welfare or 
cultural or artistic enrichment. Furthermore, the Director found that the Petitioner did not provide 
sufficient evidence to confirm whether his proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed area as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his business plan, industry reports, and articles collectively 
showcase his proposed endeavor's "potential reach and impact." He emphasizes his extensive 
entrepreneur experience in the IT field and asserts that his background demonstrates his ability to 
successfully manage his business, contribute to the country's competitiveness, foster its development, 
and generate income for the United States. 
The expert opinion letter's author emphasizes the significance of the IT field and highlights the 
Petitioner's entrepreneurship, business, IT education and training, and digital marketing experience. 
The author claims that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit and national 
importance because entrepreneurship and small businesses are vital to the economy, and the 
Petitioner's endeavor aligns with government initiatives. The Petitioner also submits recommendation 
letters from individuals who attest to his experience training senior developers to work for large 
companies, training through Y ouTube videos, and his abilities to provide online courses. In addition, 
the record includes a business plan and resume that highlight the Petitioner's education, qualifications, 
and experience in the IT field as well as his plans to expand his business, along with industry reports 
and articles that emphasize the importance of the IT industry. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. While 
the Petitioner claims his endeavor is nationally important, the Petitioner 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 record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to 
show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work as an entrepreneur in the IT education field offers 
broader implications in his field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive 
economic effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance. 
Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the evidence he submits on appeal, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
his customers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance. 
The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself: not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must 
establish that his specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. The 
4 
Petitioner 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 the United States. 
Specifically, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his specific endeavor stands to provide 
substantial economic benefits in the United States. While the Petitioner claims that his Y ouTube videos 
attract a substantial viewership and that by year five his company will offer 90 direct and 108 indirect 
jobs and gamer total revenue of $58,100,000, the record does not support the Petitioner's general 
assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility of those assertions. Furthermore, 
the lack of detail in the Petitioner's projections makes it difficult to determine how the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor differs from that of other entrepreneurs in the IT education field in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies on his education and professional experience and various industry 
reports to establish why his teaching and business owner endeavor in the IT field is of national 
importance. He argues that his proposed endeavor is of national importance because his endeavor will 
generate "substantial ripple effects" on key commercial and business activities and will serve the 
business development and functions of U.S. companies. Although an individual's experience, 
qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the 
first Dhanasar prong. The Petitioner's claimed extensive experiences are material to Dhanasar 's 
second prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they 
are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-91. 
Moreover, the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor will have broader implications 
beyond benefitting the Petitioner's customers. As previously mentioned, 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 "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes 
to undertake." Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how he will positively 
impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move the U.S. economy on a broad 
scale rising to the level of national importance. Without evidence projecting U.S. economic impact or 
job creation attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, it is insufficient to assert that the 
benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the proposed endeavor would rise to 
the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner reiterates that his proposed endeavor is of national importance because it is a matter of 
national initiatives. The Petitioner must nonetheless demonstrate his specific proposed endeavor of 
working as an entrepreneur in the IT field rather than the importance of the national initiatives and 
interests, industries, or fields. He has not done so. 
It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without 
providing evidence to corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
2010). 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive 
5 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding 
his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 ofL-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 
As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6