dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Telecommunications Software

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17479597 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 13, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a telecommunications software consultant, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as a memberof the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 Directorof the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that he is eligible for a national 
interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 
2010). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available .. . to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interest waiver .... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to 
architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016).1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it 
would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit maybe demonstrated in a range of areas 
such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
2 See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a national interest wa iverto bed iscretionary in nature). 
2 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offerorforthe petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 3 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree.4 The Director also determined that the Petitioner had not sufficiently identified his proposed 
endeavor or that the endeavor, as described, meets the first prong set forth in the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. On the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the Petitioner provided the 
following information: 
Part 5 - Additional Information About the Petitioner 
Section 11. Occupation: Telecommunications Software Consultant 
Part 6 - Basic Information About the Proposed Employment 
Section 1. Job Title: Senior OSS/BSS Consultant5 
Section 2. SOC Code: 15-12996 
3 See Dhanasar, 261 &N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on thesethreeprongs. 
4 The Petitioner holds a foreign degree determined to be the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in computer science 
followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. 
5 The Petitioner has indicated "OSS" denotes "Operations Systems Support" and "BSS" denotes "Business Systems 
Support." 
6 The Department of Labor's Occupational Information Network classified the standard occupational classification (SOC) 
code of 15-1299 as "Computer Occupations, All Other." The Petitioner has not identified a more detailed occupation 
under this title. For more information, visit https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1299.00 (last visited Sep. 13, 
2021). 
3 
Section 3. Nontechnical Job Description: Consultant for the design phase for analytics, 
cyber security, operations and business support systems in North America, Europe and 
Middle Eastern region for business to business and business to consumer segments. 
According to the initial filing, the Petitioner currently works as a Senior OSS/BSS Consultant for 
I lin Saudi Arabia. The petition contained significant detail concerning 
the Petitioner's P,ast and current work, including that he has served 'I t such asl I 
I 11 11 11 I an~ I In addition, his duties include "building and 
modifying software components, integrating and testing software interfaces, and configuring and 
modifying software systems and nodes." His current employer described him as a "professional 
subject matter expert" who "can help leverage the telecom software business that is directly 
influencing the upcoming Industrial Fourth Revolution," and that he has already shown "great success 
in accelerating the technological vision of G20 countries during the past years." The Petitioner's work 
achievements atl I include the following verbatim key topics: 
• Data Processing and Ingestion Platform; 
• Catalog-driven Solutions for Service and Subscriptions Lifecycle Management Solutions; 
• Digital Customer Experience Management Platform; 
• Publishing the outcomes of Digital Transformation Journey for a tier 1 teleco [sic] provider; 
and 
• Digital Customer Engagement Platform. 
The Petitioner described his proposed endeavor in terms of the work he has already performed and 
presented evidence of this work through employment verification letters and his application to the 
Canadian Association of IT Professionals, among other pieces of evidence .7 He stated that he is "adept 
at providing successful analytics, cyber security and OSS/BSS solutions for businesses" and that ''by 
using his knowledge of telecommunications architecture and design," he "can help corporations 
improve operational efficiencies and bottom-line performance using technology." In addition, he 
claimed that he "can continue this level of success in aiding American companies and organization in 
achieving greater efficiencies and cost savings through more expert software development" and that 
his skills are applicable to a wide variety of industries across all states. The Petitioner further asserted 
that he "would help American businesses become more competitive in the global economy" by 
utilizing his skills at "designing and implementing software programs to improve service quality and 
operational excellence while decreasing the total cost of ownership." Although the record contains 
anecdotal examples of how the Petitioner has served his employers and clients, the Petitioner has not 
offered specific information concerning how he proposes to continue offering such services as part of 
his proposed endeavor. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), which informed the Petitioner that his initial submission 
was insufficient to establish what specific endeavor he proposed to undertake and that the record lacked 
sufficient evidence to establish the substantial merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
In his RFE response, the Petitioner did not provide a detailed description of his proposed endeavor, but 
instead stated that he would continue to serve as a "Telecommunications Software Consultant" as he has 
for the past twelve years. He asserted that he had already supplied a sufficient description of his endeavor 
7 While we do not discuss every piece of evidence, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
through the submission of employment letters describing his job experience, salary statements, as well as 
evidence of job certifications, memberships, education, and specific past achievements in the field. He 
further clarified that working as a "Telecommunications Software Consultant'' would be the only 
endeavor he will pursue in the United States. 
In his RFE repsonse, the Petitioner also claimed that he gained further experience and training in the fields 
of 5G and cybersecurity. To support his claim, he submitted additional letters from telecommunications 
individuals familiar with his work as well as training certificates to evidence his continued advancement 
in these areas. However, the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his employment and training relates 
to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to 
the foreign national." Id. at 890. By issuing an RFE, the Director sought to address a siginifcant 
evidentiary gap concerning whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has 
substantial merit and national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. The RFE response did not 
provide more specificity concerning the proposed endeavor. Rather, the Petitioner relied upon the 
information he already provided.8 
The Director noted in the decision that, although the Petitioner identified that he would work as a 
telecommunications software consultant, he did not identify any specific endeavor. We agree. While 
his occupation may be described as a telecommunications software consultant or a Senior OSS/BSS 
Consultant, the Petitioner presented background information on a variety of different and distinct 
information technology (IT) occupations, including software developers, information systems 
managers, and software engineers. In addition, he described the skills required for IT managers and 
stated that he excels in the field of software development. While the record contains a conglomeration 
of evidence about the IT field, the first prong of Dhanasar considers the "specific endeavor which is the 
proposed work" and not the field overall. By presenting evidence related to various IT occupations, the 
Petitioner has not clearly demonstrated whether his proposed endeavor involves working as a 
consultant, developer, engineer, manager, architect, or some combination of these. In addition, not all 
activities within a particular occupation or proposed endeavor will necessarily meet the substantial merit 
and national importance standard.9 As such, the Petitioner bears the burden of identifying his specific 
endeavor so that USCIS may properly evaluate whether it has substantial merit and national importance. 
Although the Petitioner argues on appeal that he has "explicitly identified his endeavor, i.e. 
telecommunications software architecture," and that he will pursue employment as an expert in 5G 
and cybersecurity, the record contains insufficient information concerning his proposed endeavor. In 
Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Simply stating that he intends to continue being an expert in his 
field does not explain how he intends to maintain that expertise, nor does claiming that he will continue 
working in a particular occupation adequately identify how he intends for this to occur. He has not, 
for example, identified whether he intends to continue working with his current employer, whether he 
will pursue another job in the United States, or whether he will serve as an independent contractor. 
Further, it appears equally likely that the Petitioner could pursue self-employment in the stated field. 
8 Although we have reviewed the articles concerning the importance of telecommunications, 5G, and cybersecurity, as well as 
a II of the letters from his employers and others in the field, th is evidence is of limited value as it does not address the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor. 
9 I n Dh an asar. we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance 
because theywould not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. 
5 
To further illustrate, we do not know if the Petitioner has any job offers in the United States, if he 
intends to work for certain employers, or if he will contract with specific clients. 
The purpose of the national interest waiver is not to afford the Petitioner an opportunity to engage in a 
job search or further his own career while only adding ancillary benefits to the nation. As such, the 
Petitioner must identify how he proposes to continue working as telecommunications software 
consultant such that we may determine whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and 
national importance. Without sufficient information concerning the endeavor, no determination of its 
merit or importance can be made. Finally, given that many IT positions may be performed remotely, 
identifying the specific proposed endeavor is important in order to adequately explain how continuing 
as a telecommunications software consultant in the United States differs from the work the Petitioner 
already performs overseas. If the Petitioner will simply "continue his endeavor" and the work he has 
performed overseas for the past twelve years, this hardly explains how the endeavor would benefit the 
United States or would need to be performed from within the United States. 
Although counsel repeatedly emphasizes that the Petitioner has submitted over 500 pages of evidence, 
eligibility for the benefit sought is not determined by the quantity of evidence alone but also by the 
quality. Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376 (citing Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989)). 
It is always the Petitioner's responsibility to ensure that the record demonstrates how he qualifies for a 
national interestwaiver. Section 291oftheAct, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. In determiningwhetheran individual 
qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the specific proposed endeavor to determine 
whether (1) it has both substantial merit and national importance and (2) the foreign national is well 
positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar analysis. Because the Petitioner has not provided 
sufficient information regarding his proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that he meets either the 
first or second prong, or that he has established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
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. 
6