dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Technology Transfer

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 15, 2023 In Re: 29060606 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a project manager and entrepreneur in the field of technology transfer, seeks 
employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that, although the record 
demonstrates the Petitioner's eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, he 
did not establish 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo '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 a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) 
of the Act. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 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 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 for EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree and the record supports this determination. The remaining 
issue is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a 
labor certification, would be in the national interest. In applying the Dhanasar framework, the 
Director determined that the Petitioner established that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor and therefore met the second prong but did not satisfy the requirements for the first and third 
prongs. For the reasons provided below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner intends to own and operate a technology transfer consulting company called I II 1"2 He indicates that he will establish the company id IFlorida once he has been granted 
permanent residence, and will serve as its executive project manager. A business plan for the proposed 
company summarizes its activities as follows: 
• The company will collaborate with univers1t1es, educational institutions, and 
research centers, engaging in a variety of commercial activities that are meant to 
facilitate the process of bringing research and development to market, often acting 
as a channel between academia and industry. 
• The U.S. company will receive ideas and instructions from companies and then 
look for ways to facilitate the implementation of those ideas through work in 
research and education centers. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
As evidence related to this prong, the Petitioner submitted (1) his business plan forl l 
(2) an expert opinion letter from a professor at I I, and (3) government, media and 
2 "Technology transfer" is defined by various sources in the record as "the process by which technology is transferred from 
federal labs, universities or other research institutions to industry where it can be developed into a commercial product or 
service." 
2 
industry reports on technology transfer, the IT consulting industry, the digital economy, data 
modernization, the cloud computing market, the economic impacts of technology spending, and the 
STEM talent shortage. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not give due regard to 
this evidence in addressing the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner emphasizes the importance of technology investment and technology transfer as drivers 
of the U.S. economy and submitted several articles and reports in support of his claim. This evidence 
is relevant to the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, and we agree with the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner meets this element of the first Dhanasar prong. We recognize the 
merit of the Petitioner's plan to assist both university research labs and businesses by providing 
services designed to facilitate the commercialization of research and development activities. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the previously submitted industry reports and articles also 
demonstrate the national importance of his work, emphasizing that the petitioner in Dhanasar 
similarly relied on articles to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. But in 
Dhanasar, the media articles discussed the national importance of the petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor-to continue research into the design and development of hypersonic propulsion systems. 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 892. The record also included "probative expert letters from 
individuals holding senior positions in academia, government, and industry" that described the 
national importance of this specific research endeavor. Id. While the articles and reports here help 
demonstrate the importance of technology transfer activities in general, they do not demonstrate that 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor - to establish a small business and offer consultancy and advisory 
services related to technology transfer - has national importance. We agree with the Director that 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 "specific endeavor that the 
[noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See id. at 889. 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national or global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances, may have national importance. Id. Additionally, an endeavor that has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area, may have national importance. Id. at 890. 
In the business plan for his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner stated that his work has national 
importance "given the current demand for skilled labor in the technology transfer sector." We have 
reviewed the staffing and revenue projections in the submitted business plan. The Petitioner projects 
that his proposed company, within five years, will employ seven employees (not including the 
Petitioner), cumulatively pay wages of over $1.8 million, generate cumulative gross revenues of over 
$3.2 million, and contribute over $500,000 in tax revenue to the economy. 
Even if these employment and revenue projections were adequately supported by details showing their 
basis or a specific explanation of how they will be realized, the business plan would not demonstrate 
the proposed endeavor's significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact 
the regional or national economy. Specifically, the record does not support that the direct creation of 
seven jobs in this sector or the expected tax revenue generated by the company will have a substantial 
3 
economic benefit commensurate with the national importance element of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. The business plan does not indicate that the Petitioner will establish his 
company in an economically depressed area, that it would employ a significant population of workers 
in such an area, or that the endeavor would offer a region or its population a substantial economic 
benefit through employment levels, business activity, or related tax revenue. The Petitioner farther 
states that his endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of specialists in technology 
transfer, and STEM workers in general, in the United States. However, it is not apparent how his 
endeavor would resolve this shortage or impact it on a national level. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's arguments that advancements in science and technology are 
important for the nation's productivity, competitiveness and quality of life, and that his endeavor to 
commercialize research being carried out at universities would therefore indirectly impact the U.S. 
economy beyond directly employing workers and generating tax revenue. Specifically, he indicates 
that his company "will help to extend the boundaries of science, which would allow the creation of 
new technologies, which in tum facilitates the creation of new industries and job, generates wealth 
and maintains U.S. power." However, the Petitioner does not offer an evidentiary basis to conclude 
that his operation of a small consulting business with one location will have such far-reaching results 
in the research and development field, which is described in the record as a $280 billion industry. The 
record does not support a determination that any indirect benefits to the U.S. regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. See 26 I&N Dec at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director placed undue focus on whether his proposed 
endeavor would have "substantial positive economic effects," noting that job creation and other direct 
economic impacts are not the only factors that should be considered in weighing the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. We agree and have also considered whether the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor will have broader implications in his field or industry. 
We determined in Dhanasar 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 id. at 893. Here, the 
Petitioner, through his company, intends to "encourage and support faculty and students through the 
technology transfer process" and to transfer his knowledge to the technology managers that he hires to 
work for his company. He indicates that, as a result, he will make "unique contributions to the U.S. IT 
sector" and "generate new knowledge in the field" which will lead to "the improvement of technology 
transfer technologies." However, like the petitioner in Dhanasar, the Petitioner has not established how 
his proposed training, support and other knowledge-sharing activities would reach beyond his clients 
and employees to impact his field more broadly. The record does not establish, for example, that the 
Petitioner plans to more widely disseminate his strategies or techniques, such that his specific endeavor 
would provide a platform for the introduction of novel technology transfer methods, or that he would 
otherwise be positioned to influence the broader field or industry in this regard. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the services offered by his proposed business, will have an impact 
on matters that are the subject of national initiatives by the U.S. government. He submits information 
from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office summarizing a series of laws enacted by Congress to 
promote and incentivize the commercialization of federally fonded technology through various 
mechanisms. The Petitioner also submitted a copy of the U.S. Department of Commerce's "2020 
4 
Annual Report on Technology Transfer" published pursuant to the Technology Transfer 
Commercialization Act of 2000. The Petitioner maintains that this evidence demonstrates a U.S. 
government interest in "bolstering the technology transfer industry." 
USCIS will consider evidence demonstrating how a specific proposed endeavor impacts a matter that 
a government entity has described as having national importance or a matter that is the subject of 
national initiatives. Again, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the industry 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. 
Therefore, pursuing employment or operating a business in an area that is adjacent to or aligned with 
the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself: to establish the national importance 
of a specific endeavor. Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained the potential prospective 
impact or broader potential implications of his specific endeavor on the referenced federal technology 
transfer initiatives. 
The Petitioner has similarly claimed that his proposed endeavor would be of national importance in 
promoting U.S. competitiveness in STEM fields. USCIS recognizes the importance of progress in 
STEM fields and the essential role of persons with advanced STEM degrees in fostering this progress, 
especially in focused critical and emerging technologies, or other STEM areas important to U.S. 
competitiveness or national security. We may find that a STEM area is important to competitiveness 
or security in a variety of circumstances, for example, when the evidence in the record demonstrates 
that an endeavor will help the United States remain ahead of strategic competitors or current and 
potential adversaries, or relates to a field, including those that are research and development-intensive 
industries, where appropriate activity and investment, both early and later in the development cycle, 
may contribute to the United States achieving or maintaining technology leadership or peer status 
among allies and partners. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
The Petitioner here only vaguely asserts that the proposed consulting business would have an impact 
on technology transfer in "engineering" fields, but as we have discussed, he does not sufficiently 
articulate how his work will specifically impact his field on a national level and does not sufficiently 
detail the technologies he would work with. Further, the Petitioner did not explain or document how 
his proposed endeavor would help the United States stay ahead of strategic competitors or adversaries 
or maintain technology leadership or peer status among allies and partners. For these reasons, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor based on its focus in 
STEM fields. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner, in his personal statement, business plan and appellate brief: has 
placed considerable emphasis on his academic training in engineering, acquisition management and 
capacity development planning, and his professional experience in the project management and 
technology transfer fields. The record also contains reference letters from persons who are familiar 
with the Beneficiary's industry expertise, relevant work experience, and past achievements. While 
important, the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his academic and professional career primarily 
relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." Id. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner 
proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. A determination 
5 
regarding the claimed national importance of a specific proposed endeavor cannot be inferred based 
on the Petitioner's past accomplishments, just as it cannot be inferred based on general claims about 
the importance of a given field or industry. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner provided an expert opinion letter from a professor at
I I. Much of the letter's discussion of Dhanasar's first prong addresses the 
importance of research and development, the nature and growth of the research and development 
market in the United States, the benefits of technology transfer, and the impact of STEM fields, 
immigrants, and entrepreneurs on the U.S. economy. The author concludes that "the proposed 
endeavor will broadly enhance societal welfare" and "has significant potential to employ U.S. 
employees and other substantial positive economic effects." However, the author does not offer any 
meaningful analysis of the Petitioner's business plan, the specific proposed endeavor and its 
prospective substantial economic impact, or the broader implications of the proposed endeavor in the 
Petitioner's field or industry. 
We observe that USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, 
professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of 
Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter of 
D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445,460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be given expert 
testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). Here, much of the content 
of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. 
Overall, while the Petitioner's evidence establishes how his endeavor stands to positively impact his 
future clients, the evidence does not persuasively establish how his endeavor will have a broader 
impact consistent with national importance. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that his 
proposed endeavor meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Because the identified reasons 
for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve 
remaining arguments concerning his eligibility under the third prong of 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). 
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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6