dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: It Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 16, 2024 In Re: 32460524 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. 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 had not 
established eligibility for 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. 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 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). 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner's 
endeavor was explained as follows: 
[U]pon his visa acceptance, [the Petitioner] will work on a consultant capacity through 
his own registered and filed U.S. company, and he will use his skills to develop IT 
teams and systems, which will improve U.S. business productivity by allowing 
companies to maximize their economic capacities in a highly competitive and ever­
changing global environment, where technology is a necessity, and IT is linked to 
economic output and social development. Should his visa be granted, [the Petitioner] 
will generate significant benefits to the U.S. economy and, therefore, advance the 
national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he: 
[A]ims to advance his career in the United States as a Chief Executive, a role in which 
he will make significant contributions to the enhancement and profitability of U.S. 
businesses engaged in technology and systems management. In this capacity, he is 
poised to play a crucial role in boosting productivity and streamlining operations within 
the IT consulting sector, thereby strengthening the United States' position as a leader 
in technology efficiency. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor involving the expansion of [his company] 
showcases significant potential for substantial economic and social impact. This 
venture, with planned headquarters in Florida and business units in Georgia and Texas, 
is poised to make a notable contribution to the U.S. economy and workforce. 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Petitioner provided "Industry Reports and Articles" covering various topics, 
including entrepreneurialism, thereby satisfying the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor. 
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 I&N Dec. at 889. Although the Petitioner 
emphasizes "the essential role played by Chief Executive Officers in the IT consulting sector" and 
references the "Industrial Reports and Articles" involving broad topics, such as the importance of 
immigrants and executive roles in the IT and business fields, the Petitioner must demonstrate the 
national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of being a Chief Executive in the IT consulting 
sector. 2 In Dhanasar, we 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 
2 The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the 
national importance part. 
2 
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. 
The Petitioner states that his "skill set . . . encompassing strategic IT planning, systems optimization, 
operational efficiency, and a deeper understanding of business process dynamics," "expertise in IT 
systems optimization and management," "background in sectors like Pharmaceuticals, Electronics, 
Automotive Parts, Process Industries, and Power Generation," and "profound expertise and extensive 
experience in IT systems" shows that he is well-suited to drive forward his proposed endeavor. 
However, the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities 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. 
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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his role as a Chief Executive in the IT 
consulting industry largely influences the field and rises 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. The record does not 
show through supporting documentation how his endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his prospective 
customers, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates his desire to establish his company "in a HUBZone in __ 
Florida" demonstrating his "commitment to contributing to economic development in areas that are 
historically underutilized in business activities." The Petitioner argues that his decision "supports 
federal economic policies focused on stimulating growth and employment" and a I I Florida 
location "not only facilitates tapping into local talent but also aligns with the federal effort to create 
jobs and invigorate economies in diverse regions." However, as the Director correctly noted, the 
Petitioner did not provide evidence showing thatl IFlorida is an economically depressed area 
where the potential creation of 36 jobs would trigger "substantial positive economic effects" as 
required. Furthermore, the Petitioner's intention to base his company in a Small Business 
Administration HUBZone is unpersuasive. The HUBZone program's goal is to promote business 
growth in underutilized business zones with the goal of awarding 3% of federal contract dollars to 
companies that are HUBZone certified. Joining the HUBZone program makes a business eligible to 
compete for certain federal contracts in the "set-aside" category. There are several required 
qualifications to participate in the program, but the most dispositive requirement for purposes of our 
analysis is that the business seeking to participate in the HUBZone program must be at least 51 % 
owned by U.S. citizens, a community development corporation, an agricultural cooperative, an Alaska 
Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. We note that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor would be wholly owned and controlled by the Petitioner and that the Petitioner is 
not a U.S. citizen, a community development corporation, an agricultural cooperative, an Alaska 
Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. And to the extent the Petitioner 
asserts that he would base his company in a HUBZone designated underutilized business zone, the 
3 
record does not adequately establish that increased employment in these designated underutilized 
business zones would have positive economic effects commensurate with national importance. So, 
the fact that the Petitioner' proposed endeavor may be in a HUBZone is wholly irrelevant to whether 
the Petitioner's endeavor rose to a level of national importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his business plan's claimed employment and tax 
projections, even if credible or plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Although the business plan 
claims the creation of 36 positions after five years, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that such future 
staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to Florida, Georgia and Texas or other 
anticipated regions or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. While the business plan claims $5.44 million in the projected total payment of wages 
over five years, and $13.9 million in planned revenue generation in the first five years, the Petitioner 
did not establish that such figures would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. For all these reasons, the record does not establish that, beyond 
the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having national importance or that it would 
offer substantial positive economic effects. 
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. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose, as well as a review 
of the Director's unfavorable determination of the Petitioner's eligibility as an individual of exceptional 
ability. 3 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
4