dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 3, 2024 In Re: 29226372 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a software developer and inventor of color management technology, seeks second 
preference 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 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for 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. 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 also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS ' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner's proposed employment is "develo in new color management programs and 
technology" as a chief technology officer at a com an owned by his wife, Mrs. 
I land its German Q_arent company,~------~ The Petitioner's resume 
shows that he has worked atl : l for most of his career, starting out as a software 
developer in 1993, then becoming a senior research manager in 1999 and a technical director of color 
management software in 2002. In 2012, the Petitioner began working as the chief technology officer 
at~------~ 
The Director issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID) and then denied the petition, concluding that 
the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance under the first prong of the 
Dhanasar' s analytical framework. 2 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. As the Director has found 
substantial merit in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, we will only focus our analysis on the 
endeavor's national importance element. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director "did not consider all presented evidence." 
Specifically, the Petitioner claims that the Director failed to consider reference letters from "large, 
nationally, and internationally operating companies, which all stated the significant economical impact 
of the petitioner's endeavor" and relied only on the size and employability of the Petitioner's current 
employerJ I 
The Director's analysis largely concentrated on the articles and industry reports submitted by the 
Petitioner regarding the importance of the industry and the economic impact from the Petitioner's 
current employed I. Although the Director mentioned the reference letters by stating 
that "some of the letters reference [the Petitioner's] contribution to the petitioning [company] and the 
relationship it has with other companies," the denial letter did not folly explain how the reference 
letters from presidents and CEOs of companies that operate in the field of printing and color 
management software support the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
2 The Director further concluded that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under the second 
prong, but the evidence does not support that his endeavor, on the balance, would be beneficial to the United States to 
waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, under the third prong. 
2 
Generally, reference letters demonstrating that the Petitioner successfully performed past projects or 
that he received recognition for his work relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
whether he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Id. at 890. However, Dhanasar 
states that "[ 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. Accordingly, we examined the entire record, 
including updated reference letters submitted on appeal, for any evidence that the Petitioner's research, 
inventions, or processes has national or global implications within the color printing software industry. 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's ultimate conclusion that the Petitioner's endeavor 
does not rise to the national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar, as discussed below. 
The reference letters overall attest to the partnerships and utilization of the technology and products 
developed by I landl lfor which the Petitioner has worked as a software 
developer and technical expert. We acknowledge that the Petitioner's endeavor to work for 
I las the chief technical engineer will enrich and enhance the company's product lines and 
technologies associated with color management software and impact other companies in the industry 
that partner with I l However, the record does not corroborate the claims made in these 
reference letters regarding the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rising to the level of 
national importance. 
For example the letter from Director of Solutions Development and Strategic 
Escalation of states that the Petitioner's color management technology such 
as._______ ____,have been "importance components of our company's products, and to the color 
management industry overall and he is well-known in the industry." However, the author does not 
address the Petitioner's specific role in inventing such technology, or how such technology is 
important to the field overall. 
Similarly, the letter fro__._______________ ....1 states that "our products rely heavily 
on the color management solutions which have been developed by [the Petitioner] and his companies, 
I I' and the Petitioner's "algorithms for color management 
are widely regarded as the highest quality in the industry." But the author does not provide details 
concerning how the Petitioner's algorithms are new or unique in a way that it rises to the level of 
national importance in the industry. 
Furthermore, I l stated that the Petitioner "is the 
inventor of the technology provided byl I' and "[h]is inventions 
are essential for the printing industry worldwide and are used in a variety of products not only 
developed b~ lbut also by several other vendors in the industry overall." Yet, 
the record contains little indication that other industry professionals have adopted the Petitioner's 
techniques or methodology. 
Apart from the assertions made in these reference letters, we have little concrete evidence of how the 
Petitioner's endeavor constitutes major contributions to the industry. Generalized and conclusory 
statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. 
v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990)(holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
3 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). The authors of these reference letters do not give 
specific examples as to how the Petitioner's work has influenced the field and the evidence on record 
does not sufficiently support the claims made in the letters. 
The Petitioner submitted patents and patent applications for various electronic processing of color 
metrics and color management, both in the United States and Europe. Theses documents indicate that 
the Petitioner is one of the inventors who developed the color imaging technology. However, the 
evidence does not clarify how the Petitioner's design extended beyond his employer to affect the field 
as a whole. We understand that the Petitioner's employer, I I supplies other companies in 
printing industry with the patented design and technology and partners in mutually beneficial ways 
with other companies, but the business activity generated by the patented technology appears to 
primarily benefit the Petitioner's employer and its direct partners and clients. The Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated how his patented technology is available to the industry as a whole or 
influences the field more broadly. 
The record also contains evidence of awards granted to I l the German parent 
company of I l such as the 2017 Center for Technology and Research award for its 
I !;the 2018 EU Business award for I Iand 
the 2021 Printing United Alliance award forl IThese awards indicate 
that the Petitioner's employer benefited from his software development and inventions in the past, but 
they do not substantiate that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or methods will influence and 
impact the printing and color industry, other than just his employer and its customers, rising to the 
level of national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. Id. at 890. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that substantial economic imJact 
comes from his employer's engagement with various companies in the industry, such asl "a 
fortune 500 compan[ with over 600 billion in annual revenues and almost 80,000 employees" 
( quotations omitted); Ia company that has "grown more than 50% in the last 3 years" 
and "employ more than 55 people in the United States in four locations"; and I I "the 
number one software solution in the world for sign making, digital printing and CNC machining 
industries" with "annual sales over $25 million and currently 38 employees in the United States." 
However, the Petitioner's claims are unpersuasive. In Dhanasar, we focus on the impact of the 
petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. Id. at 890. We find that the record does not provide sufficient 
details regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the 
Petitioner's future work. We acknowledge that the Petitioner's employer has engaged in business 
activities with its conglomerate partners and customers with high revenues and many employees. 
While any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact the economy, we find the 
endeavor's prospective impact too attenuated to be considered a "substantial positive economic effect" 
as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. 
Considering the record in its entirety, we conclude that the Petitioner does not adequately describe or 
demonstrate how his future software development work stands to rise to the level of having national 
importance within the color management technology field. The record does not show that the specific 
4 
work the Petitioner proposes to undertake will offer original innovations to advance the industry, or 
that it otherwise has wider implications in his field. As discussed, the evidence did not sufficiently 
articulate how his particular proposed endeavor would have national importance beyond his current 
employer and its clients. 
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Petitioner did not establish national importance of the 
proposed endeavor and does not meet 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) ("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 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, we conclude 
that 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