dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Telecommunications Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 13, 2023 In Re: 284467 44 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a telecommunications engineer, requests classification under the employment-based, 
second-preference (EB-2) immigrant visa category and a waiver of the category's job-offer 
requirement. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2)(B)(i), 8 U .S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has discretion to excuse a job 
offer - and thus a related requirement for certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) - if 
he demonstrates that a waiver would be "in the national interest." Id. 
The Acting Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director found the Petitioner 
qualified for the EB-2 category as a member of the professions holding an "advanced degree" and 
agreed that his proposed work has "substantial merit." But the Director ultimately concluded that the 
Petitioner did not warrant a national interest waiver. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the 
Director applied an incorrect standard of proof and overlooked evidence that: his endeavor has 
"national importance;" he is "well-positioned" to advance it; and a waiver of the U.S.-worker 
protections would benefit the country. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that he has not established the claimed national importance of his proposed 
venture. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for national interest waivers, petlt10ners must first demonstrate their 
qualifications for the requested EB-2 immigrant visa category, either as advanced degree professionals 
or as noncitizens of "exceptional ability" in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of 
the Act. To protect the jobs of U.S. workers, this category usually requires prospective employers to 
offer noncitizens jobs and obtain DOL certifications to pennanently employ the noncitizens in the 
country. Section 212(a)(5)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(D). To avoid the job offer/labor 
certification requirements, petitioners must demonstrate that waivers of the U.S.-worker protections 
would be in the national interest. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Neither the Act nor regulations define the term national interest. To adjudicate these waiver requests, 
we therefore established a framework. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889-91 (AAO 
2016). If otherwise qualified as advanced degree professionals or noncitizens of exceptional ability, 
petitioners may merit waivers of the job-offer/labor certification requirements if they establish that: 
• Their proposed U.S. work has "substantial merit" and "national importance;" 
• They are "well-positioned" to advance their intended endeavors; and 
• On balance, waivers of the job-offer/labor certification requirements would benefit the United 
States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner, a Venezuelan native and citizen, attended university in his home country, earning a 
titulo de ingenerio de telecomunicaciones. He has since gained about 10 years of experience working 
in the telecommunications field. He seeks to continue working as a telecommunications engineer in 
the United States. 
B. Advanced Degree Professional 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that his Venezuelan university credential equates to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in telecommunications engineering. He also documented his possession of at least 
five years of progressive, post-baccalaureate experience in the telecommunications field. We 
therefore agree with the Director that he has demonstrated his qualifications for the requested EB-2 
immigrant visa category as an advanced degree professional. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) ( defining the 
term "advanced degree" to include "[a] United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty"). 
C. Substantial Merit 
A proposed endeavor may have substantial merit whether it "has the potential to create a significant 
economic impact" or it relates to "research, pure science, and the furtherance of human knowledge." 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner's proposed undertaking could improve U.S. 
telecommunications infrastructure and provide substantial economic and societal benefits. Thus, we 
also affirm the Director's finding that the Petitioner's venture has substantial merit. 
D. National Importance 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, USCIS must focus on the 
particular venture, specifically on its "potential prospective impact." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. "An undertaking may have national importance, for example, because it has national or 
even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. A nationally important venture may even focus 
2 
on only one geographic area of the United States. Id. at 889-90. "An 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. 
The Director found insufficient evidence that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would impact the 
United States beyond his employer and its clients. Similar to Dhanasar, where we found that teaching 
the subjects of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) to university students 
would not affect the education field broadly enough to attain national importance, the Director found 
that the Petitioner did not show that his network engineering activities would significantly advance 
the telecommunications field or have national economic implications. 
The Petitioner initially stated his intent to work for a U.S. uniform company as a network cloud 
engineer. But, in response to the Director's request for additional evidence, he stated that a U.S. digital 
engineering company would instead employ him as a fiber engineer. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his proposed endeavor has national importance based on his new 
job. He contests the Director's finding that, to the extent his new job materially differs from his prior 
position, USCIS cannot consider the new work because it represents a change in his endeavor or a new 
endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) (requiring a petitioner to establish eligibility "at the time of 
filing the benefit request"); see also Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (AAO 1998) (barring a 
petitioner from making material changes to a petition after its filing). But we need not determine 
whether the Petitioner's endeavor has changed because, even based on his new job, the record does 
not establish his endeavor's national importance. 
The Petitioner argues that the Director overlooked evidence of the endeavor's national importance in 
the Petitioner's statement. The Petitioner stated that he would design, develop, and implement fiber 
optic networks to meet national demand for high-speed, broadband Internet services. He said his 
designs would enable operators to estimate costs, identify savings opportunities, avoid network 
"downtime," and increase operators' returns on investment. The Petitioner thus contends that his work 
would contribute to the country's economic growth and competitiveness. By sharing technical 
expertise and best practices on the projects, he also argues that he would facilitate collaboration within 
industries, ensuring faster deployment of next-generation networks. 
The Petitioner, however, has not provided sufficient evidence about the scope of his proposed work. 
As previously indicated, when assessing national importance, we must focus on the potential impact 
of the particular, proposed endeavor. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889 ("The first prong, 
substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the spec[fic endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake.") ( emphasis added). We recognize that the field of telecommunications 
engineering makes important contributions to Internet capabilities, affecting U.S. economic growth 
and competitiveness. But the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific projects on which he 
would work have national implications in the telecommunications field or on the national economy. 
The Petitioner stated that his current project would benefit two national Internet service providers. But 
the record does not indicate whether the specific project affects services nationwide or regionally. 
Also, he does not provide information about the project's economic scope or any potential effect on 
an economically depressed area. 
3 
The Petitioner also contends that the Director disregarded portions of expert opinion letters from three 
U.S. university professors of electrical engineering, computer sciences, and cybersecurity and 
information technology. The professors state the following national implications of the Petitioner's 
work in his new job: 
• Replacement of copper wires with fiber optic cables would increase the reliability and speed 
of U.S. Internet services. 
• Internet improvements would prevent delays, shutdowns, and losses and, at a time when 
increasing numbers of Americans are working remotely from their homes, create new jobs. 
• Network upgrades would expand U.S. Internet access and coverage. 
• Government initiatives seek to rebuild U.S. infrastructure and increase Internet access. 
• The ability of more U.S. residents to work from their homes reduces the country's carbon 
em1ss10ns. 
• Telecommunications are increasingly important for the nation's safety, security, and 
education. 
We recognize that the Petitioner's work would contribute to nationally important goals. But the 
professors' letters do not demonstrate that his specific endeavor has national implications. The letters 
focus on the telecommunications field rather than on the Petitioner's particular, proposed work. The 
professors' letters therefore do not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner further contends that "USCIS has applied a stricter standard of proof when analyzing 
the 'national importance' of [his] proposed endeavor than that of a 'preponderance of the evidence."' 
The Petitioner, however, does not provide examples of the Director's purported stricter standard. The 
Director's decision cites the appropriate standard of proof: stating that "the petitioner did not submit 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he is 
eligible for the requested benefit." See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. The decision 
does not otherwise indicate that the Director applied a higher standard. The record therefore does not 
support the Petitioner's contention. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed venture has national 
importance. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
Our determination regarding the endeavor's national importance resolves the appeal. We therefore 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding his positioning to 
advance his proposed venture and the purported benefits of a waiver to the United States. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 
n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible 
for relief). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4