dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Quality Assurance Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 12, 2024 In Re: 33378675 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a quality assurance (QA) engineer, 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 classification. See 
section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(national interest waiver), concluding the Petitioner had not established that 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 pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer r equirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion,1 grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• 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. 
Id. 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional and therefore has 
established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification. The Director also determined the 
Petitioner established he is an individual well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, meeting 
the second prong of the Dhanasar framework for a national interest waiver. However, according to 
the Director, while the Petitioner established the substantive merit of his proposed endeavor, the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that he merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in 
the national interest" because he had not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor 
under Dhanasar ·s first prong, and that on balance waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the 
United States under Dhanasar 's third prong. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
In his initial filing, the Petitioner identified his occupation as the head of,_________ __,and 
described the significance and vulnerabilities of software development, the role and duties of head of 
D and his contributions shaping D processes and methodologies in software development. The 
Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) seeking, in relevant part, details of what the Petitioner 
intended to do in the future for the United States. The Petitioner clarified in his response to the RFE, 
that he proposes to work for U.S. companies, focusing on enhancing software quality across critical 
sectors, create online courses to educate and expand theOprofessional community, and continue his 
open source contributions developing tools that facilitate test automation and knowledge sharing. 
The Petitioner submitted documents in support of his national waiver petition, which include: 
recommendation letters, an article interviewing him, an award by the technology community 
recognizing his contribution to~ his teaching and presentation materials, a document evidencing 
the downloads of a tool,I he created, an article describing howl lworks,Drelated 
articles he has authored, and government memoranda. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted a brief and a copy of portions of the USCIS policy manual. In his 
brief, he asserts that some of his evidence and statements were ignored or misinterpreted by the 
Director. He discusses the impact of his past work in D and asserts his open source contributions 
have affected the global D community. The Petitioner also asserts that he has written technical 
articles inD participated in interviews and conferences, is recognized as an expert in his field, has 
won an award for his work inD all which evidence that his work has affected large groups of people. 
The Petitioner asserts that he does not understand how the Director could accept his evidence that he 
is an expert in the field and not accept that his teaching would have national importance in the United 
States. The Petitioner also highlights that his work falls within Science, Technology, Engineering, or 
Mathematics (STEM) fields, which government memoranda evidence is a national priority. 
2 
As an initial matter, we address the Petitioner's assertion that some of his evidence and statements 
were ignored or misinterpreted by the Director, such as his written technical articles in~ his 
participation in interviews and conferences, his award for his work inD Our review indicates the 
Director properly considered the relevant evidence. Further, we acknowledge the evidence the 
Petitioner submitted, which predominantly demonstrates his past experience, work history, and 
accomplishments withinD 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. Here, the issue is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to 
undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. We therefore have limited our 
analysis of the Petitioner's evidence herein to those relevant to our analysis of whether his proposed 
endeavor is nationally important. 
The first prong focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake. Id. 
at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its 
potential prospective impact. Id. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of 
the proposed endeavor and that "[a]n unde1iaking may have national impmiance for example, because 
it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id at 890. 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. 
With respect to his proposed endeavor of enhancing software quality across critical sectors, the 
Petitioner explained in the record below that he is planning to propose his services to U.S. companies 
in the "most important sectors for national U.S. interests, like healthcare, financial, etc." He stated he 
would continue working within the healthcare sector by focusing on developing software aimed at 
mitigating health crises like COVID-19 and enhancing the provision of critical information to 
healthcare professionals and patients. He adds that he will continue to provide software services with 
safe data processing to preempt data breaches through rigorous quality assurance processes in the 
health and financial sectors. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his past work in D where he 
improved COVID-19 tests, affected millions of patients in the United States, and his past success 
protecting data resulting in no data breaches "on [his] watch" similarly affected many people, 
evidencing national or even global implications within his field. 
In support of this endeavor, the Petitioner submitted recommendation letters. One letter by a former 
employer described the Petitioner's performance significantly improving his company's operational 
costs. Another described how the Petitioner's software enhancement doubled his company's ability 
to conduct COVI D-19 tests. Neither author of these recommendation letters described whether the 
Petitioner's solutions were shared or could be shared outside of their respective companies, or 
provided data substantiating the Petitioner's claims, for example that his improvements affected 
millions of U.S. patients, and that his proposed endeavor has broader national or global implications 
in his field. Moreover, the Petitioner speaks only generally about enhancing D in software to 
mitigate health crisis or preempt data breaches. However, he does not specify how providing his 
quality assurance software services for a U.S based company would more broadly impact the field of 
software engineering, including as it relates to the health industry, beyond his prospective clients and 
employers. Likewise, he has not shown that his endeavor would have any projected positive U.S. 
economic impact or job creation at a level commensurate with national importance as set forth in 
3 
Dhanasar. Further, while we note that the Petitioner plans to propose his services to U.S. companies 
in the "most important sectors for national U.S. interests," 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 Petitioner proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. 
As context for his proposed endeavor of educating and expanding the □ professional community, 
the Petitioner explained in the record below that he has three years of teaching experience inD and 
is poised to significantly contribute to the ~------~ through educational initiatives. He 
plans to, for example, develop and distribute learning materials, create hands on projects for his 
students, leverage his extensive professional network to promote his courses. According to the 
Petitioner, these efforts will support the U.S. economy through tax contributions but also play a pivotal 
role in nurturing new I I professionals, directly benefiting the nation by enhancing its 
technological workforce and innovation capabilities. In support, the Petitioner included 
recommendation letters from a former student explaining how the Petitioner's tutoring helped him 
successfully implementDtools, an individual highly impressed with his teaching methodology, and 
an individual who claimed the Petitioner improved his students' qualifications in the0automation 
field. The Petitioner also asserted that his students found employment after taking his classes. 
However, these letters do not demonstrate how his proposed endeavor of educating the D 
professional community would have any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation. In addition, 
the Petitioner has not established that the strategies he intends to use in teaching would impact the 
field of0 software/information technology (IT) education more broadly. See id. at 893 (stating that 
while STEM teaching has substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational interests, the record would 
need to demonstrate that the proposed teaching activities would impact the field of STEM education 
more broadly to establish their national importance). With respect to the Petitioner's argument on 
appeal that because we accepted evidence of his experience we should apply it to analyzing 
Dhanasar 's first prong, the Petitioner's experience relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which looks to whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
Id. at 889. To analyze Dhanasar ·s first prong, we focus on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner 
proposes to undertake and whether its prospective impact has national importance. Here, the Petitioner 
has not established through his submitted evidence that his endeavor of educating and expanding the 
D professional community would result in national or even global implications within his field as 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Nor has the Petitioner provided metrics or data to support his 
claim that his teaching would support the U.S. economy because it has significant potential for the 
employment of U.S. workers or will have other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in 
an economically depressed area. Id. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts his open source contributions affect the globalDcommunity, which 
he says is evidenced by a recommendation letter and documentation of the volume of downloads of 
his I I product. In the record below, the Petitioner explained that he would provide open 
source contribution by producing more articles and guides on D topics, sharing his knowledge and 
insights to support the professional growth of others in the field, engage in conferences, meetups, and 
webinars, contributing to the discourse onD best practices and innovations, and to create automation 
tools like~----~ and I I which are tools he created in the past. According to 
the recommendation letter, the Petitioner contributed to a software solution that allowed the user to 
more accessibly pull up a report by using links, which the company integrated into the software's 
package. According to the record, the Petitioner's I ltool allows users to bypass a bug for the 
4 
program python. The concept behind I I allows software testers to fetch emails from 
~---~I to meet their automated testing requirements. We acknowledge the Petitioner's past 
accomplishments and success. We have also reviewed the recommendation letter, evidence of the 
download rate for I I and article describing the tool, which demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
work has impacted individual users. However, the evidence does not explain who is using the 
referenced tool and how it is being used in the industry to sufficiently demonstrate global or national 
implications within the software quality assurance field. Similarly, as discussed above, the Petitioner's 
evidence of his other software fixes did not demonstrate the prospective impact for the field of software 
engineering or for the nation. Further, the Petitioner does not describe any specific software 
development plans he has or whether he could build upon his past accomplishments in these areas to 
evidence national or global implications within the field of software engineering. 
The Petitioner further asserts on appeal and in the record below that his proposed endeavor 
demonstrates his commitment to advancing the D field and contributing to the United States' 
technologic and educational landscape, which are within STEM fields and a national priority of the 
United States. The Petitioner cited to the USCIS policy manual and submitted a White House 
Memorandum on Research and Development Priorities for fiscal year 2024 and highlighted the 
government's interest in prioritizing pandemic readiness and prevention. He also submitted a 2021 
Interim National Security Strategic Guidance document also issued by the White House where the 
Petitioner highlighted that responding to COVID-19 is within the national security strategy. We agree 
that USCIS recognizes the importance of progress in STEM fields and the essential role of persons 
with advanced STEM degrees in fostering this progress, especially in STEM areas important to U.S. 
competitiveness. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/ 
policymanual. However, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance. Id. Many proposed endeavors that aim to advance STEM technologies 
have substantial merit in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, and sufficiently broad 
potential implications to demonstrate national importance. Id. On the other hand, while proposed 
classroom teaching activities in STEM, for example, may have substantial merit in relation to U.S. 
educational interests, such activities, by themselves, generally are not indicative of an impact in the 
field of STEM education more broadly, and therefore generally would not establish their national 
importance. Id. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his endeavor would impact the field of 
software engineering or software quality assurance education more broadly, thereby advancing STEM 
technologies and research. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established the national importance of 
his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar prong one. 
As the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor, as outlined 
above, we reserve the Petitioner's arguments that he has demonstrated the third Dhanasar prong. 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 {BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework and therefore 
has not established that he merits, as a matter of discretion, a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement attached to this classification. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6