dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Network Security

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 13, 2024 In Re: 30146278 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a network security consultant, seeks classification as either an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability. 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. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional but that the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. The matter is now before 
us on appeal pursuant to 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. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification, as either a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
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 at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a 
master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). "Exceptional ability" means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability, the petitioner must then establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job 
offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither 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 a matter of discretion, 1 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 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 immigrant classification, based upon 
obtaining the foreign equivalent of a master's degree in business administration. But upon de novo 
review, we conclude that this finding is not supported by the record. The Petitioner provided a copy 
of his diploma and transcript for his master in business administration degree from the I I 
of Business Management Studies in India and a credential evaluation regarding the U.S. equivalency 
of this degree program. However, the credential evaluation states that the recommended U.S. 
equivalency is a master's degree in business administration from an institution of higher education 
that "lacks regional accreditation." 2 The credential evaluation states only this conclusion and does not 
provide any information as to the basis for the conclusion, nor does the record otherwise establish 
whether the Petitioner's degree was obtained from the foreign equivalent of an accredited institution 
of higher education. Based upon this lack of clarity, we conclude that the record is not sufficiently 
clear to establish that the Petitioner possesses a master's degree or its foreign equivalent, and the 
Petitioner would need to address this deficiency in any future proceedings where that is required to 
establish eligibility. 3 
As to the Petitioner's request for a national interest waiver, the Director found that the Petitioner 
established only the substantial merit the proposed endeavor and did not establish its national 
importance, that he is well-positioned to advance it, or that, on balance, waiving the job offer 
requirement would benefit the United States. The Petitioner states that he proposes to establish a 
1 See also Flores v. Garland. 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
the Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is 
discretionary in nature). 
2 While the regulatory language at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) does not specifically state that a degree must come from an 
accredited college or university to qualify as an "advanced degree," the requirement is implicit in the regulation. See 
Matter of Yau. 13 T&N Dec. 75 (Reg'! Comm'r 1968) (a degree issued by an unaccredited institution does not allow the 
degree holder to qualify as a professional within the statute granting preference classification). 
3 The Petitioner also claims to quality for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability and based upon 
possessing the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the 
specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Because, as discussed below, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor, and because this is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal. we need not consider the Petitioner's other claims as to EB-2 qualification in the first instance. 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). 
2 
technology-driven consulting firm that specializes in providing comprehensive solutions to the 
networking and security challenges faced by businesses in the United States. 
In determining that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, 
the Director noted that the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession 
in which the individual will work; instead users considers the "specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] 
proposes to undertake." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director concluded that the 
evidence in the record did not sufficiently establish the Petitioner's claims about the endeavor's 
potential to create jobs, contribute to the U.S. economy, and secure the nation's technology 
infrastructure. The Director found that the business proposal did not demonstrate that the proposed 
consulting firm has the significant potential to employ U.S. workers or generate other economic 
benefits on a nationally significant level. Additionally, the Director noted that the business proposal 
is dated July 5, 2023, after the date of filing the original petition, and that users cannot consider facts 
that arise only after the filing of a petition. The Director also found that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that the endeavor would provide significant advances in the field of network security. 
Finally, the Director stated while the articles in the record demonstrate that the importance of the field 
of network security to the United States, that they did not sufficiently establish that the Petitioner's 
specific endeavor of operating a consulting firm has national or global implications within the field of 
network security. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor, rather than simply the field, is nationally 
important. The Petitioner also claims that he submitted sufficient documentary evidence to establish 
his eligibility, specifically his business proposal, his "model or plan for future activities," and the 
articles submitted. Finally, as to the Director's conclusion that the business proposal was dated after 
the filing of the initial petition and therefore did not help demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility at the 
time of filing, the Petitioner asserts that his complete business proposal was in fact created prior to 
filing the petition, and that the document submitted was simply an excerpt that was created in response 
to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). In support of this claim, the Petitioner submits on appeal 
a new, undated document that he claims is the complete business proposal that predates the filing of 
the petition. The Petitioner also submits on appeal new letters of recommendation. 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Id. An endeavor that has national or global implications within a particular field, 
such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances, may have 
national importance. Id. Additionally, an endeavor that is regionally focused may nevertheless have 
national importance, such as an endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has 
other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director that the record does not establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. Additionally, although the Petitioner acknowledges on appeal 
the Director's findings and states that he disagrees with them, he does not identify any specific error 
in the Director's conclusions oflaw or statements of fact. For example, in response to the Director's 
conclusion that the evidence in the record is insufficient because it relates to the importance of the 
industry or field, rather than the specific proposed endeavor, the Petitioner simply asserts that the 
endeavor will target critical cybersecurity concerns, optimize network infrastructure, and therefore, 
"directly contributes to national security, network infrastructure, and technological leadership." 
3 
However, this assertion does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed consulting 
firm has the potential to do so at a level commensurate with national importance. Similarly, although 
the Petitioner contends that the documentary evidence demonstrates the national importance of the 
endeavor, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner's business proposal, his model for future 
activities, and the articles submitted are not sufficient to establish this requirement. 
The articles submitted, which discuss layoffs in the tech field, cybersecurity challenges in the United 
States, and financial losses due to cyberthreats, relate to the network security industry in general, rather 
than the Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor. None of the articles in the record demonstrate the 
national importance of establishing a network security consulting firm such as the Petitioner's. We 
agree with the Director that, in determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, the 
relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will 
work; instead, we focus on the potential prospective impact of the "specific endeavor that the 
[noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We acknowledge 
that the articles in the record may be helpful in establishing the potential need for and interest in 
improved network security and cybersecurity. Primarily, however, this speaks to the substantial merit 
of the proposed endeavor, which we agree with the Director has been established. 
The Petitioner's "model or plan for future activities" states that the company will conduct market 
research, have a competent team, establish strategic partnerships, and provide exceptional services. 
Similarly, the business proposal, as submitted in response to the RFE, describes the consulting firm's 
services and its target market and states that the company will hire highly skilled professionals, tailor 
its services to each client, and use a multi-faceted marketing approach. The undated business proposal 
that the Petitioner submits on appeal contains more details, but it similarly describes the company's 
services, marketing approach, and target market. Regardless of whether the document was created 
prior to the filing of the petition, we agree with the Director that neither the business proposal nor the 
"model or plan for future activities" sufficiently establishes that the Petitioner's consulting firm has 
the potential to broadly impact the field, offer significant economic benefits, or otherwise rise to the 
level of national importance. The evidence does not demonstrate that the consulting firm's services 
would differ significantly from those already available on the market, offer improvements or new 
approaches that are replicable through the field, or otherwise would stand to broadly impact the 
industry beyond those clients directly served. Additionally, the business proposal includes a "financial 
projections" section which provides expected revenue and expenses amounts for years one through 
three of the business, projecting a net profit of $730,000 by year three. However, the document does 
not provide any basis or explanation for these numbers, stating only that they are based on "extensive 
market research" and assume "a gradual increase in revenue." We therefore conclude that the 
Petitioner has not established the credibility of these financial projections. Moreover, even if credible, 
the Petitioner has not offered evidence to establish that this amount of revenue has the potential to 
result in the type of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated in Matter ofDhanasar. Id. 
at 890. 
In Dhanasar we concluded that STEM teaching has substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational 
interests, but that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the activities of one individual STEM 
teacher would impact the education field more broadly. Id. at 893. The same is true here. The 
Petitioner has not established that the benefits of his proposed endeavor will extend beyond his own 
clients or employees to impact the network security field or the U.S. economy more broadly. 
4 
The Petitioner's claims on appeal do not overcome the basis for the Director's findings as they relate 
to the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Moreover, upon de novo review, we agree that 
the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor, as required by the 
first Dhanasar prong. Therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We acknowledge 
the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to the second and third prongs of Dhanasar but, having found 
that the evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as to national importance, we reserve 
our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the Petitioner's EB-2 eligibility and the 
remaining Dhanasar prongs. 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 of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where the applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the national importance requirement of the first prong of Dhanasar. We 
therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5