dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 14, 2024 In Re: 31067926 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a project manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of 
exceptional ability, 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 although the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional, he did not establish that a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 1 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion, 2 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 An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a 
bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
2 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). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
The Petitioner proposed to "work as a Project Manager with expertise in ERP (Enterprise Resource 
Planning) Projects and Information Technology Management, focusing on integrating a company's 
areas and processes, implementing and managing ERP projects following PMI methodology and agile 
methodologies approaches like Scrum and Kanban." The Petitioner further stated that he "will lead 
IT teams and support large industrial operations using ERP TOTVS and SAP with ITIL practices." 
Moreover, he indicated that he intended to "help American companies grow and expand, transform 
business processes, develop new revenue sources, and expand their business globally, bringing 
revenue and profit from international trade to the United States." 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was of substantial merit, and we 
agree. However, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor 
had national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor is of national importance, asserting that 
his endeavor not only reflects his "substantial professional experience and qualifications but also 
positions his contributions within the context of societal and economic advancement in the United 
States." Specifically, the Petitioner contends that his professional plan will benefit U.S. based 
companies by streamlining operations, fostering growth, and contributing to job creation and, 
therefore, that his proposed endeavor "aligns with broader societal welfare goals and government 
initiatives, making a compelling case for its national importance." The Petitioner further asserts that 
his "undeniably extensive documentation" shows his proposed endeavor will have global implications 
within the field and industry, and positively impact the economy. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the 
specific endeavor that the individual 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
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." See id. We further indicated 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. We also 
stated that "[a ]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be 
understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
Upon review of the professional plan, the Petitioner has not established how the project management 
services he intends to provide to future employer(s) in the United States would have broader 
implications in the IT industry. He broadly states that his "unique project management skills" will 
"help American companies grow and expand, transform business processes, develop new revenue 
sources, and expand their business globally," but the record does not explain and provide adequate 
support to demonstrate how his proposed endeavor would help American companies grow, impact 
2 
business processes, or develop new revenue at a national level. 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 similarly not established 
that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his future employer(s). Nor has he 
demonstrated that his work as a project manager would broadly enhance societal welfare at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
In addition, the 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. While the Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor "will positively impact 
the economy" and "holds significant economic benefits for the United States," 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. The Petitioner relies on market growth and industry trends, the COVID-19 pandemic, technology 
adoption, and support for remote work culture to highlight the potential impact of the proposed 
endeavor in the project portfolio management (PPM) market. However, the Petitioner does not 
sufficiently indicate or document how his proposed project manager position would have "significant 
economic benefits" on the PPM market such that this would have a potential prospective national 
impact on the U.S. economy. In addition, although the Petitioner asserts that his endeavor will "create 
new jobs," he does not clarify how many and has not offered sufficient evidence that his endeavor 
would result in substantial economic benefits through employment levels, tax revenue, or business 
activity. 
Moreover, the Petitioner relies, in large part, on his more than 35 years of experience in the fields of 
IT and business to show the global significance of his proposed endeavor. However, the Petitioner's 
expertise and record of success 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 his 
proposed work. 
We also reviewed the Petitioner's letters of recommendation where the authors praise the Petitioner's 
abilities in the IT industry, his personal attributes, and an asserted asset to the workplace. However, 
the letters of recommendation do not offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of his proposed 
endeavor and how it would extend beyond his employer. As such, the letters are not probative in 
demonstrating the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar. 
Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we 
need not address his eligibility under the remaining prongs, and we hereby reserve them. 3 The burden 
of proof is on the Petitioner to establish that he meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. The Petitioner 
has not done so here and, therefore, we conclude that he has not established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
3 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 of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516. 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4