dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Telecommunications Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 04, 2024 In Re: 33942301 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a telecommunications engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional as well as a national interest waiver of 
the job offer requirement attached to this classification. 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 did not establish eligibility as an advanced degree professional or for a 
national interest waiver. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. 
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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&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,1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
1 See 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. at 889. 
11. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Visa Classification 
The Director determined that the Petitioner does not qualify as an advanced degree professional. Since 
the evidence in the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner is 
eligible for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion, we will reserve 
the issue of whether he qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional for future 
consideration should the need arise.2 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to unde1iake and its "potential prospective impact." Id. 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. Id. The term "endeavor" is more 
specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation 
normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that 
occupation. For example, while engineering is an occupation, the explanation of the proposed 
endeavor should describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of engineering in which the 
person will work, rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of an engineer. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
We agree with the Director's conclusion that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit as it falls 
within the above-mentioned range of areas of substantial merit. Therefore, we will first identify the 
Petitioner's endeavor as shown in the record and then evaluate the Petitioner's evidence in support of 
the endeavor's national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor is to "launch and develop a recently formed U.S.­
based Company that will contribute to the country's economy, society, and American citizens' lives 
through the consulting and training services in private projects as well as government programs to 
organizations in charge of deploying infrastructure and technology for high-speed internet in the 
United States." He contends that his "[company's] goal is to develop into an organization that will be 
recognized as a reference on matters related to the internet and broadband networks segments, with 
the purpose of increasing the area of Internet coverage in places that are not yet served with high 
speeds, improving data security, providing advice on design and development of processes for network 
2 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2 
administration, as well as training and updating in techniques for the deployment and implementation 
of new wireless technologies." He farther contends that "[t]he Company's overarching objective will 
be to support and continuously contribute to improving the American citizens' and SME businesses' 
internet network connections and tech infrastructure while bringing efficiency and stability to their 
daily lives and business operations," which "will serve to stimulate the country's sustainable growth, 
protect value chains and navigate uncertainty by building trust and bolstering tech-driven resilience to 
disruptions and threats." In addition, he states that he "will seek to establish his new U.S. Company 
within or near some of the economically distressed communities and historically underprivileged areas 
in the U.S. also known as Opportunity Zones and HUBZone areas." The Petitioner's business plan 
indicates that by its fifth year, his company will have 14 employees, not including independent 
contractors, and an estimate of $1.56 million in sales revenue. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by requiring that he demonstrate that his 
proposed endeavor stands to impact the regional or national population at a level consistent with 
national importance. He contends that in Dhanasar, we stated that an undertaking may have national 
importance because it has national or global implications, but it is not a mandatory requirement. He 
further contends that the Director did not analyze his case under the preponderance of the evidence 
standard, as required. 
Here, the Petitioner relies primarily on the importance of the U.S. technology industry, particularly 
the mobile communications and wireless industry, to the U.S. economy. However, this misapplies the 
Dhanasar framework. 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." Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. In 
Dhanasar, 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. A local physical therapy business 
and a shortage of physical therapists in the United States does not render the proposed endeavor 
nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner's business plan provides a generalized description of the company's marketing and 
growth strategy and projected sales and claims that "[t]he prospective inclusion of [his] substantial 
professional expertise in the U.S., gained by accumulating a vast international work experience in 
developing and implementing large-scaled telecommunications projects, with an emphasis on internet 
and broadband networks, will immensely enrich the overall Tech Industry in the U.S., and will 
contribute to addressing the problem of rapidly rising demand for distinct Tech professionals in the 
country." While the Petitioner contends that "he can use his vast knowledge and experience and work 
towards increasing the area of Internet coverage in places not yet served with high speeds, generate 
more direct and indirect job opportunities, as well as help American organizations to save resources, 
increase the quality of their services, and improve their networking systems," these projections are not 
supported by relevant or probative evidence, details showing their basis, or an explanation of how they 
will be realized, nor do they demonstrate a significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to 
substantially impact the national economy or the economy of thel IFlorida region, the intended 
location of his company. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to 
3 
the field have little probative value.3 Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any 
projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the record does 
not show that 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. Id. Further, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his Florida-based consulting business 
would benefit an economically depressed area. The record also does not indicate by a preponderance 
of the evidence -that it is more likely than not- that the Petitioner's endeavor "will serve to stimulate 
the country's sustainable growth, protect value chains and navigate uncertainty by building trust and 
bolstering tech-driven resilience to disruptions and threats" or '·transform the lives of American 
citizens living in rural and isolated, difficult to access areas with no or poor internet network 
connections." Broad statements and projections regarding the potential growth of the Petitioner's 
business - based upon his experience as a telecommunication engineer and the growth and importance 
of the wireless industry- do not demonstrate the prospective impact directly attributable to his 
proposed endeavor or establish how his company will impact the industry beyond his customers and 
the operations of his business. In the end, the economic benefits that the Petitioner claims will result 
from his endeavor depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently direct 
evidentiary tie between his proposed endeavor and the claimed economic results. 
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. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
4