dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Technology / Risk Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 01, 2024 In Re: 33951137 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a technology company, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, for the Beneficiary as well 
as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 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 record did not 
establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance or that it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and labor certification. 1 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 afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/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 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
1 The Director 's decision did not address if the Beneficiary is well positioned to advance the endeavor, or if the endeavor 
is of substantial merit. The Petitioner's appeal brief states that the Director "appears to have conceded" the proposed 
endeavor's substantial merit and that the Beneficiary is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. This is 
inaccurate. 
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 requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&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, 2 grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 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. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual 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. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The appeal brief states that the Beneficiary works at the Petitioner's company as a Senior Program 
Manager. In her position, she evaluates regulatory compliance and risk management for the 
Petitioner's clients and determines how best to tailor the Petitioner's technologies to their clients' 
needs. She guides her engineering team to then design these customized tools within the Petitioner's 
platforms and guides the clients in implementation. The evidence provided does establish that the 
proposed endeavor is of substantial merit. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that the 
specific endeavor is of national importance. 
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." 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 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in concluding 
that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
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. To evaluate 
whether the proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence 
documenting the potential prospective impact of the Beneficiary's work. 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established how the Beneficiary's position as a program 
manager will have a broader impact on the field beyond the Petitioner's company and clients, a 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or substantial positive economic effects, as contemplated 
by the first Dhanasar prong. 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In their response to the request for evidence (RFE), 
the Petitioner contends that the proposed work is nationally important because it ensures that "U.S. 
and foreign corporations transacting in the U.S., maintain robust compliance and risk management 
infrastructure utilizing sophisticated cloud computing platforms to meet strict regulatory provisions" 
set by the government. 
We observe that the functions described in the letters from the Beneficiary's supervisors show that her 
work facilitates the Petitioner's operations as it focuses on molding the Petitioner's software to its 
clients' needs. These are tasks that support the Petitioner, as they allow the Petitioner to sell its 
software. Nevertheless, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Beneficiary as a single 
employee would affect the software regulatory compliance field more broadly beyond her set of 
clients, significantly employ U.S. workers, or have substantial positive economic effects as 
contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
We note that the Petitioner contends that "due tol Ireach and dominance within the relevant 
field .. .it would be severe error to find that [the Beneficiary's] endeavor does not have national 
importance because her endeavor is focused on her work for her employer." Nevertheless, the 
Petitioner cannot rely on its market share alone to claim the Beneficiary's work is nationally important. 
It must show how the functions and tasks carried out by the Beneficiary coalesce into a nationally 
important endeavor. 
The record overall does not adequately demonstrate national importance either. 3 The Petitioner 
provided a number of articles, reports, publications from the Petitioner, and letters of 
recommendation. 4 Many of the articles and reports provide background on the field or explain the 
field's importance. The importance of the field does not determine the proposed endeavor's national 
importance. See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. Furthermore, though the articles and reports provide 
background information, and some describe generally how the Petitioner utilizes its software for 
clients, they are of little evidentiary value to the issue of national importance. This is because they do 
not address the Beneficiary's specific work or how it would have broad implications in the regulatory 
compliance field in a way that implicates national importance. 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 We note that one of the articles submitted in response to the RFE originated after the filing of the petition. A petitioner 
must meet all of the eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
3 
I 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from Dr. I I a professor in computer science and 
information systems at I I As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements 
submitted by a petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 
1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other 
information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the 
submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. In this letter, Dr. 
Idescribes the merit and importance of professional endeavors in software engineering, 
generally. He does not mention the Beneficiary or her specific work. As such, the letter is of little 
evidentiary value. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889 (noting that the focus of prong one is not the 
importance of the field, industry, or profession but the specific endeavor the noncitizen proposes to 
undertake). 
We acknowledge that in his letter of support, the Beneficiary's supervisor, I I states that the 
Beneficiary is responsible for assisting multinational Fortune 500 companies in designing their 
operating software to meet regulatory requirements. Yet adequate documentation to support this claim 
has not been submitted. Contentions require support to underpin them, as assertions themselves do 
not constitute evidence. See, e.g., Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998) ("statements in a 
brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary 
weight"). Without more documentation supporting the claim, there is not enough in the record to 
establish the national importance by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 375-76. 
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally 
important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish 
that the proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond the Petitioner to affect the field of advance 
computing more broadly. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. For the reasons given above, we find that 
the record does not demonstrate national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. 
As the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 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 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). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that they have not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5