dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Systems Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 23, 2024 In Re: 31069981 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a systems engineer, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. See 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, 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(b )(2)(B)(i). 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 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 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. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "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 that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner shows : 
1 See also 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, and the record supports that determination. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be 
determined on appeal 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. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets 
any of the three Dhanasar prongs. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the evidence was sufficient 
to demonstrate that he meets all three prongs under the Dhanasar framework and otherwise warrants 
a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
In a letter of support, counsel for the Petitioner claimed that he was a systems engineer "with over 40 
years of experience in communication and information technologies" who had contributed to the IT 
field in his home country of Colombia. Counsel described the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as 
follows: 
[T]o provide easy, affordable, and short-term business management IT solutions such 
as ERP/CRM (Enterprise Resource Planning/Customer Relationship Management) for 
small and medium sized companies (SMEs) in the U.S. in order to strengthen their 
internal processes, efficiency, and expand their market while also improving customer 
relationships through digital tools. In addition, through his undertaking, he will provide 
and implement GRP/CRM (Government Resource Planning/Customer Relationship 
Management) IT services in governmental and public administration institutions to 
improve internal processes while assuring transparency in public resources. 
In an action plan submitted with the petition, the Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor is 
oriented on two fronts. Specifically, he stated: 
The first is the provision of ERP/CRM enterprise solution implementations services in 
the niche of small and medium sized companies in the United States of America. This 
segment of companies and the economy require first to strengthen their internal 
processes to be more agile and expand their market, then improve customer 
relationships by offering a number of tools that the digital world offers today. The high 
costs and complexity of implementation have prevented them from accessing this type 
of technology. Therefore, offering our services at a low cost, short term and easily, is 
2 
the bridge that will facilitate their growth and therefore that of the economy. Secondly, 
to provide and implement government or public administration GRP/CRM solutions, 
promoting a state and local government service to citizens, supporting the improvement 
of internal processes to make them agile, simple, and easy, and ensuring transparency 
in the management of public resources. All of the above in an ecosystem, where state, 
business and citizens interact harmoniously in a smart city model. 
In addition to his action plan, the Petitioner submitted a personal statement, copies of his academic 
credentials, letters of support and recommendation, and industry articles and reports. 
The Director determined that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit, his 
initial filing did not establish that the proposed endeavor had national importance. The Director 
observed that the Petitioner's evidence did not provide specific insight as to what he intends to do in 
the United States, or that his proposed endeavor would have potential prospective impact, significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers, or other substantial positive economic effects. As a result, the 
Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) that requested a detailed description of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor in order to evaluate his request for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar 
framework. 
In response, the Petitioner summarized his proposed endeavor, stating that he intends "to leverage 
[his] extensive experience and knowledge of 35 years in construction and implementation of ERP, 
GRP, and CRM software, as well as the construction and implementation of software for government 
finances and creation/management of ICT (Information and Communications Technology) solutions 
in order to develop business models that promote the growth and implementation of ERP software 
among United States companies and small businesses, which constitute 99.9% of all companies 
according to the Small Business Administration (SBA)." He also stated that he intends to perform the 
following activities: 
• Elaborate a rigorous market study of the small business' niche, and the 
competition in the ERP software industry. 
• Create a business plan elaborated in sufficient detail to socialize and promote it 
with potential strategic allies. 
• Strategic alliances with American companies with strengths in consulting, 
education and training, software engineering, computer infrastructure services, 
and marketing services. 
In addition, he submitted an updated personal statement and additional testimonial letters and industry 
articles in support of his eligibility for a waiver of the job offer. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that although the proposed endeavor had substantial 
merit, the Petitioner provided insufficient evidence to establish the proposed endeavor's national 
importance. The Director determined that the Petitioner had not shown that his proposed endeavor had 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers, would offer substantial positive economic effects for the 
United States, or that the benefits to the national economy resulting from the proposed endeavor would 
reach a level contemplated by the Dhanasar framework. On appeal, the Petitioner provides a brief 
3 
emphasizing his qualifications and asserting that the evidence of record establishes the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we 
further 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 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. 
Preliminarily, we note the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that the Director abused their discretion in 
failing to address all evidence, citing Buletini v. INS, 850 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994) in support. 
The court in Buletini, however, did not reject the concept of examining the quality of the evidence 
presented to determine whether it establishes a petitioner's eligibility, nor does the Buletini decision 
suggest that USCIS abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece 
of evidence. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate 
findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it 
necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 
707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir.1992)); see also 
Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. US. INS, 984 F.2d 
105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). We conclude the record reflects the Director's consideration of all evidence 
in the totality even though the Director did not address each piece of evidence individually. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
documentation explaining how the proposed endeavor is of national importance. While the 
Petitioner's statements and evidence reflect his intention to construct and implement various types of 
software for small and medium-sized businesses, he has not offered sufficient information and 
evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of 
national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise 
to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed 
endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to impact the business management software 
market or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Throughout the record and again on appeal, the Petitioner points to his education, skills, knowledge, 
and record of success in his field. The Petitioner also provided several letters of support that discuss 
his experience in the field of software engineering. 2 The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience 
in his field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from 
the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." See id at 890. The issue here is whether the specific 
endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under the second consideration of 
Dhanasar's first prong. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his 
work. 
We note the Petitioner's submission of articles, reports, and information on government initiatives 
pertaining to the role of ERP systems in modern business operations and trends in the IT industry. In 
determining national importance, however, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, 
field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, we focus on the "specific endeavor that 
the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. The Petitioner must demonstrate the national 
importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of implementing ERP and related software rather than the 
importance of the field of software engineering. While we note that the findings in the publications 
support the Director's determination that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, they do not 
establish that the endeavor has national importance. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of support that speak to his character and his talents in the field. For 
example, a letter from _________ endorses the Petitioner, acclaims his development 
of a proprietary software product, and asserts that his expertise in the field of business management 
software will greatly contribute to the U.S. economy. A letter from _______ similarly 
compliments the Petitioner's abilities as a software engineer and recommends him for the requested 
classification. A letter from ______ discusses the Petitioner's contributions in the field 
software and data engineering and notes the positive impact his work has had on the I I I I Although the writers praise the Petitioner's achievements and abilities as a software 
engineer, none of the authors discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. Instead, the authors 
primarily focus on the Petitioner's character, skills, and past achievements. Neither the letters nor any 
other evidence within the record provide insight into how the Petitioner's endeavor to implement 
business development software will positively impact the region or the industry beyond his clients. 
Again, 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 "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. 
The Petitioner's action plan includes an overview of the industry and a proposed organizational chart 
for a potential team of individuals he hopes to assemble in the future. The action plan, however, is 
devoid of a timeline or documentation such as industry and market analysis, business strategies, and 
financial forecasts and is therefore insufficient to demonstrate that the specific endeavor the Petitioner 
proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial 
positive economic effects for our nation. Specifically, while the action plan contains a general 
proposal for his future work in the field of business development software implementation, it does not 
identify a specific target region or demonstrate that his endeavor's future staffing and business activity 
stands to provide substantial economic benefits in the United States. Further, it does not demonstrate 
that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would 
reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In 
addition, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that he would employ a significant 
population of workers or that his endeavor would offer a specific region or its population a substantial 
economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. 
We recognize the value of software engineering and business development software implementation; 
however, merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of 
5 
the proposed endeavor. We conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands 
to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact the business development software field or the 
U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance, as his evidence and 
statements are not sufficient to demonstrate his endeavor has the potential to provide his claimed 
economic and business development benefits to the United States. The Petitioner must support his 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
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. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under 
the remaining Dhanasar 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 that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6