dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Telecommunications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 04, 2024 In Re: 34828200 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for 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 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, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of 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 that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• 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 job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
1 See also 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner intends 
to "provide specialized consulting services to [ c ]ompanies dedicated to providing telecommunications 
services." 2 With his petition, he provided a Professional Plan, in which he stated that the "scope of 
the proposed endeavor focuses on providing specialized consultancy services in sales management, 
management, and technical consulting to multinational and regional companies in the technology, 
media, and telecom sector." 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not the 
national importance, of the proposed endeavor. 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 foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Although the Petitioner provided articles discussing the importance of telecommunications, 
"Legislating to Secure America's Wireless Future," and competition or the influence of China on Latin 
America, the matter here is not whether these topics are nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner 
must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his services 
as a telecommunications consultant. Likewise, his submission of articles covers a wide range of topics, 
such as information technology (IT) infrastructure and trends in the IT sector, rather than establishing 
the national importance of his particular professional services. 3 
In Dhanasar, we 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. 
The Petitioner stresses his "expertise and achievements." However, the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, 
and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor 
that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
Similarly, the Petitioner also argues the submission of letters written in his support discussed the 
impact of his work in the field and stated that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national 
importance. Although the letters discuss the Petitioner's particular services to each respective client, 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. Further, 
although the Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director's decision failed to adequately assess the evidence provided. 
On de novo review of the record, we conclude that the Director did not err in her decision to deny the petition. 
3 The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the 
national importance part. 
2 
the letters do not show the broader impact of the Petitioner's work rather than limited to his specific 
clients, who have employed him for his services. Moreover, the letters cover the Petitioner's prior 
work and accomplishments and relate more to the second prong rather than the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Id. at 890. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. Here, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his services would largely influence the field and rise to the 
level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined the petitioner's teaching activities did not 
rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. 
Id. at 893. The record does not show through supporting documentation how his endeavor sufficiently 
extends beyond his prospective clients, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not show how his consulting services have significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation. While the 
Petitioner continues to make general claims that his original petition and response to the Director's 
request for evidence "clearly established how the proposed endeavor is set to deliver transformative 
economic benefits by revolutionizing the telecommunications and technology sectors in the United 
States," the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how his particular proposed endeavor 
would have any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation. A review of the record shows that 
that the evidence provided by the Petitioner made general claims, such as that his proposed endeavor 
"will help companies and individuals make better informed decisions which will create more jobs and 
wealth that would eventually return to the government as tax revenue to fund community initiatives 
and basic needs of society." The Petitioner further opined that under his guidance, companies' 
expansion, "could enhance their revenue stream and widen their customer base, fostering growth and 
success among" small to medium sized businesses ( emphasis added). His statements regarding the 
"potential to employ U.S. workers" indicates that his proposed endeavor "hold[s] significant potential 
to benefit the U.S. economy by creating job opportunities and stimulating economic growth." 
However, these statements are not supported by evidence aside from speculation of outcomes should 
his consulting services be requested. Without such evidence, the record does not show any benefits 
to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from his services or position would reach the level 
of "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis ofthe Petitioner's eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 4 
4 See INS v. Bagamashad. 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessmy to the ultimate decision); see also Matter olL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits 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. 
4