dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Systems Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 09, 2024 In Re: 31111420 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a systems engineer, 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 Texas 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 she 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 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 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. The record demonstrates that the Petitioner earned a bachelor's degree in systems engineering 
from in Venezuela in 2003 and has over 20 years of professional 
experience in the information systems field, working at various industries in improving operational 
efficiency in business processes. 
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 Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that her endeavor meets the first prong of Dhanasar. 2 
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." However, we find the 
Petitioner's claims unpersuasive for the reasons discussed below and agree with the Director's 
determination. 
The Petitioner initially stated that her proposed endeavor is to "apply my experience as a systems 
engineer in the mental health services industry to advance the design and development of novel 
technological platforms that facilitate the delivery of virtual clinical services in the mental health 
industry in the United States." The Petitioner claimed that she "intend[s] to create new all-in-one 
technology platforms to support, strengthen, and meet the demand for mental health services that the 
American population requires" and "this will be achieved through the implementation of modular 
and comprehensive software solutions, which would modernize, automate, expand, and diversify the 
clinical and therapeutic services offered by companies in this area of health." 
Instead of discussing the details of her endeavor and the unique software platform, the initial evidence 
supporting the national importance largely consisted of general articles and reports on mental health, 
various federal legislations on disability, rehabilitation, and mental health parity, and the Biden 
administration's 2022 initiative highlighting strategies to address the national mental health crisis, 
along with a list of STEM designated degree program list from the Department of Homeland Security 
2 The Director further concluded that the Petitioner met the second prong of being well-positioned to advance her endeavor 
but did not satisfy the balancing factors under the third prong of the Dhanasar's analytical framework. 
2 
(DHS). Based on these documents, the Petitioner claimed that her endeavor has national importance 
because it is "tailored to meet national public health objectives that improve mental health" and "is 
also intimately aligned with numerous government goals, programs, initiatives, legislation, and 
regulations." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner offered more generalized 
articles and reports of technology innovation, the shortage of software developers and engineers, the 
use of technology for mental health treatments, and the announcement on fonding the Substance Abuse 
and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The Petitioner also submitted updated 
personal statements and a business plan. In the business plan, the Petitioner claimed that she will 
"establish and oversee the operations of I I and "create a unique technological platform, 
implementing a system of Multipurpose Virtual Clinical Services based on an ISM (Modular Software 
Integration) solution, which combines web and mobile technologies." However, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner has not shown her endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her 
company! lor its clients to impact the mental health field or the U.S. economy broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that Dhanasar does not require the Petitioner to demonstrate a 
broader impact in the field "to survive the requirements of the First Prong." But we noted inDhanasar 
that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and one of the criteria for 
demonstrating national importance can include "national or even global implications within a 
particular field such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical 
advances." Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner's main assertion is that she will "advance the design and 
development of novel technological platforms that facilitate the delivery of virtual clinical services in 
the mental health industry." Therefore, the Director considered the appropriate standards laid out by 
Dhanasar and properly evaluated the endeavor's broad implications in the field but concluded that the 
record lacks specific and persuasive details regarding the proposed endeavor and its impact. The 
Petitioner has not submitted corroborating evidence to describe in detail her "novel technological 
platforms" or suggest that her methodologies somehow differ from or improve upon those already 
available and in use in the United States. 
The Petitioner further contends that she submitted "numerous government initiatives and regulations 
that illustrate the impact of the endeavor on a matter considered nationally important" and that the 
Director erred by dismissing such evidence. However, in determining national importance, the 
relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or professional in which the individual 
will work; instead, the focus is on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake" and the endeavor's "potential prospective impact." Id. 
In Dhanasar, we gave significant weight to "probative expert letters from individuals holding senior 
positions in academia, government, and industry that describe the 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 
3 
entities detailing how her specific endeavor impacts a matter that is a subject of national initiatives. 3 
None of the articles and reports specifically mention the Petitioner's endeavor or discuss the 
government's interest in promoting the use of the Petitioner's innovation or solutions. 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. 
The Petitioner also contends that the Director imposed novel criterion outside the precedent decision 
by its overemphasis on geographical scale of the endeavor. However, the Petitioner has not pointed 
to specific instances where the Director overly emphasized such geographical scale. Here, the Director 
evaluated the endeavor's broad reach either in a region or on the nation as a whole, and its potential 
to create jobs, provide substantial economic impacts, or impact the field. Id. at 889-90. 
In addition to evaluating the endeavor's broad impact to the field, we noted in Dhanasar 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. The Petitioner claims that the plan to hire approximately 20 
employees in five years "is more than enough to meet the plain language of the criterion when coupled 
with the ample projection-based evidence provided in the record with respect to the likelihood of said 
employment of US workers." Furthermore, the Petitioner asserts that her endeavor is not centered 
around its economic effects but "rather, the present endeavor meets the criterion of national importance 
mainly because ... it will broadly enhance societal welfare." 
As the Petitioner submitted a business plan that provides various staffing and financial projections, 
the Director properly evaluated the endeavor's potential to employ U.S. workers or for other 
substantial positive economic effects as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. 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 her proposed endeavor's activities and any 
demonstratable societal welfare or substantial economic activities. Although the Petitioner indicated 
that her consulting work will create tax benefits and payrolls for 20 employees, the record does not 
provide objective and corroborating details as to how such projections are created, aside from 
generalized claims and statements. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, 
and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Finally, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's claim that "none of the evidence particularly 
submitted for this prong was analyzed but generally referred to and disregarded without adequate 
grounds." The Director has clearly acknowledged and analyzed various documents on record but 
concluded overall that the quality of the evidence lacked probative value in supporting national 
importance of the endeavor. To determine whether a petitioner has met her burden under the 
preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, 
probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; see also Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-
80 (Comm'r 1989). 
3 The Director discussed two advisory opinion letters from but noted that they repeat the 
information already provided in the Petitioner's support letters and business plan and generally address the importance of 
the mental health field but do not discuss the proposed endeavor with persuasive and corroborating details. The authors 
of these letters also do not claim to be experts in the field who can evaluate the cutting-edge technology of mental health 
software platforms. 
4 
The Petitioner primarily relied on articles and government reports that do not discuss her specific 
endeavor to demonstrate national importance. Such evidence shows that her endeavor has substantial 
merit but does not establish that her endeavor is of national importance under the Dhanasar' s first 
prong. Although we acknowledge that mental health is an important issue for the United States, the 
Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence corroborating that her endeavor of creating software 
platforms for her clients would broadly assist the mental health industry such that it rises to the level 
of national importance. 
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 her 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, we find that 
she has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate 
basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5