dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 21, 2024 In Re: 30291265 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a software developer and technology trainer, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification (EB-2) 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 EB-2 immigrant classification. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
qualified for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but 
that he 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 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 (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) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublish ed 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 the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver 
of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner initially described his endeavor as follows; 
[The Petitioner's] proposed endeavor is to help expand the field of Software 
Technology by creating training and development centers for software technology that 
cater to young immigrants to address the lack of opportunity to train and receive 
certification before immigrating to the country. Specifically, [the Petitioner] plans to 
develop an online platform that will allow, with the endorsement of the participant or 
the participant's guardian, for the participant to register and locate or form groups with 
other young people according to their location and specific field of study. With this 
information, [the Petitioner] will then proceed to organize the groups and assign them 
a workspace and schedule with a facilitator. 
The Petitioner's proposed activities include coordinating and making alliances with organizations and 
institutions for logistical and economic support, developing the online platform for registration of 
users, recruiting technicians and technology professionals, organizing and teaching groups of students, 
and training facilitators. The Petitioner proposed that this "Tech Community" will help young 
immigrants to be "interested in the area of technology" and secure internships and jobs in the field. 
The initial evidence supporting the national importance of his endeavor consisted of surveys and 
reports on the STEM completion rates among college students and educational levels of Latino 
immigrants in the United States, the Biden administration's 2021 initiative on advancing educational 
equity for Hispanics, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics occupational handbook on software 
developers and analysts. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
offered updated personal statements, various articles discussing the importance of equity in education 
and opening opportunities in the field of technology for the Hispanic and Latino population, and 
2 The Petitioner has shown that he has a U.S. equivalent of a master's degree in software engineering with his diploma. 
transcripts, and an academic credential evaluation. 
2 
additional government reports on advancing equity for Latino communities and eliminating barriers 
in STEM education for the underrepresented minorities. 
Based on the evidence presented, the Director concluded that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial 
merit but not national importance under the first prong of Dhanasar. 3 On appeal, the Petitioner does 
not provide any new evidence but asserts that the Director's analysis of Dhanasar's first prong overall 
"contains instances of a misunderstanding and misapplication of law that go beyond harmless error 
and reach the levels of abuse of discretion." We find the Petitioner's claims unpersuasive and agree 
with the Director's ultimate conclusion, as discussed below. 
The Petitioner first contends that the Director ignored "objective, documentary evidence," such as 
various articles and government reports submitted with the initial filing and the RFE response. With 
this evidence, the Petitioner has shown that the Hispanic and Latino population's access to education 
in STEM field is a nationally important issue and his endeavor has substantial merit. However, merely 
working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake" and consider the endeavor's "potential prospective impact." Id. at 889. Here, the 
Petitioner's evidence regarding national importance consisted of generalized articles and government 
reports that do not specifically address his endeavor. 
In claiming that the Director abused their discretion in failing to "correctly and rightfully consider the 
viable, probative evidence," the Petitioner cites to Buletini v. INS, 850 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 
1994). 4 However, the court in Buletini did not reject the concept of examining the quality of the 
evidence presented to determine whether it establishes a petitioner's eligibility nor does it suggest that 
USCIS abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. 5 
The Director's statement, "[the Petitioner] did not provide evidence that [his] work is nationally 
important," indicates that the quality of the evidence overall lacked probative value in supporting 
national importance of the endeavor, and therefore, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's claim that 
the Director ignored the evidence on record. To determine whether a petitioner has met his burden 
under the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including 
relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376; 
Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
The Petitioner also contends that the Director imposed "a novel or otherwise undefined and arbitrary 
requirement" by requiring "reports from government agencies, industry groups, or NGOS describing 
[the] proposed endeavor or letters from officials representing governmental agencies, industry groups 
or NGOS illustrating that [the] proposed endeavor has national importance." Per Dhanasar, this 
contention is unavailing. In Dhanasar, we gave significant weight to "probative expert letters from 
individuals holding senior positions in academia, government, and industry that describe the 
3 The Director also found that the Petitioner did not meet the second or third prong of the Dhanasar's analytical framework. 
4 Here, the court stated that failure to consider all of the relevant evidence submitted by a plaintiff constitutes an abuse of 
discretion. Buletini, 850 F. Supp. at 1223. 
5 When USCTS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required 
to specifically address each claim a petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the 
petitioner presents. Xiao Ji Chen v. US. Dep't ofJustice, 471 F.3d 315,341 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Morales v. INS. 208 
F.3d 323, 328 (1st Cir. 2000)). 
3 
importance of hypersonic propulsion research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests" and "detailed 
expert letters describing U.S. Government interest" in Dr. Dhanasar's specific research. Id. at 892. 
Here, the Petitioner has not provided similar evidence, such as the type of expert opinion evidence or 
letters from government entities specifically detailing how his endeavor impacts a matter that is a 
subject of national initiatives. None of the articles and reports specifically address the Petitioner's 
endeavor or discuss the government's interest in promoting the use of the Petitioner's "Tech 
Community." Therefore, the Director properly noted the deficiency in the record documenting the 
interest of the federal government or other relevant national agencies in the Petitioner's specific 
proposal. 
Given that the Petitioner largely relied on articles and government reports that do not discuss his 
specific endeavor to support his eligibility under the Dhanasar's first prong, we will evaluate other 
evidence on record, including recommendation letters and letters of interest, to determine whether the 
endeavor has national importance due to its broad impact in the field. Dhanasar states: "[a]n 
undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances." Id. at 890. 
Here, the testimonial evidence in the record do not analyze the proposed endeavor or offer evidence 
of its impact. The reference letters, mostly from the Petitioner's former work colleagues, did not 
address the endeavor's specific impact or special methodologies attributable to the Petitioner to solve 
the educational barriers or equity in the Hispanic and Latino communities. Instead, they generally 
praised the Petitioner's skills and experience as an effective coordinator of community technology 
centers in the Dominican Republic, his commitment to his work, and his professionalism. We also 
reviewed several letters of interest: a letter from Reverend _____ of theI I _______ ( expressing interest in hiring the Petitioner as a training coordinator for 
"information and communication technology courses" to serve at-risk youth in the faith community in 
I INew York); a letter from Reverend! lofl in the I I New 
York (seeking to hire the Petitioner as "Training Coordinator for Information and Communication 
Technology" so that "our young people have the ability to start their own business" or "improve their 
employment"); and a letter from theI Iin I I 
(seeking to hire the Petitioner as "Coordinator/Professor" for the technology courses offered to women 
in vulnerable situations). However, these letters of interest do not corroborate the specific nature or 
numerosity of projects to support the Petitioner's claims that his endeavor will have a broad impact in 
achieving equity in the STEM field for the Latino and Hispanic population across the country. 
The Petitioner asserts that he will improve access to education in STEM field "for the Hispanic 
population of the United States," improve the "life quality of Americans while promoting innovation," 
and "positively impact the United States." But the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence 
detailing how his endeavor will operate on such a large scale nor does he provide detailed information 
about how his services will reach beyond the group of students who take his technology courses such 
that they would rise to the level of national importance. The Petitioner's assertions, without evidence 
to substantiate them, do not establish his eligibility. 
In Dhanasar, we further noted 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 
4 
area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. The Petitioner 
claims he provided "ample documentation to corroborate the economic benefits of [his] proposed 
endeavor by and through the personal statements submitted with the initial petition and RFE response." 
Although the personal statements make several claims of economic benefits, they are too attenuated 
to sufficiently show the endeavor's "substantial positive economic effects." For example, the 
Petitioner asserts "the effects [his] endeavor go beyond education technology access; it implicates a 
broader and atemporal improvement that shall enhance the business processes and economic growth 
of the Hispanic population in the U.S." Any basic economic activity has the potential to positively 
impact the economy and social welfare; however, the Petitioner has not offered a sufficiently direct 
connection between his proposed endeavor activities and any demonstratable societal welfare or 
substantial economic activities. Although the Petitioner indicated that in forming this community of 
students and addressing the equity in STEM education, he will work with various organizations, 
technicians, and facilitators, the record does not provide detailed plans for operating his program, i.e., 
a business plan, or its specific impact, aside from generalized claims and statements. The Petitioner 
must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor and has not met the first prong of Dhanasar. Therefore, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third 
prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "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 requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has 
not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5