remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Cybersecurity

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 13, 2025 In Re: 34822152 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an individual who works in the field of cybersecurity, 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, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i) . U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that, while the record 
established the substantial merit and national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, it did 
not sufficiently demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance the endeavor or 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 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
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 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. 
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." Id. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCTS 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; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional. The 
remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The first prong, 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. 
The Petitioner intends to develop a company providing cybersecurity services. In a request for 
evidence (RFE), the Director stated that the Petitioner met the requirements of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. In evaluating whether the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit, the 
Director provided the following ( quoted as written): 
The petitioner claims he intends to work as a Chief Executive Officer/Entrepreneur in 
the field of Cyber Security/Internet Defense, based loosely on statements garnered from 
the petitioners proposals within his: 
• Petitioner Letter 
• "Development, consulting, and training services to the private and 
public sectors pertaining to cyber security for Critical 
Infrastructure Control Systems. " 
• Petitioner's Curriculum Vitae CV 
• "I am convinced that with my permanent residency in the United 
States I will be able to create a cyber security and internet defense 
company ... 
This criterion has been met. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
As to whether the Petitioner's endeavor has national importance, the Director provided the following 
( quoted as written): 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead USCIS must 
focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, the AAO noted that they "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. AAO 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." 
The criterion has been met. 
The Director provided no analysis in either the RFE or the denial decision to support her determination 
that the Petitioner qualifies under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The record contains 
evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner intends to operate a business inl IFlorida, providing 
services to enhance cybersecurity within the critical infrastructure control systems of the company's 
clients. The RFE, however, did not acknowledge the Petitioner's specific endeavor or any evidence 
submitted to establish its substantial merit or national importance. The Director's subsequent denial 
did not acknowledge additional evidence submitted relating to the proposed endeavor, including a 
business plan. Review of the evidence indicates that the Petitioner relies on the importance of the field 
of cybersecurity to establish the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
While we agree that an endeavor to enhance the cybersecurity of businesses has substantial merit, the 
Director did not sufficiently address how the Petitioner's endeavor to operate a small cybersecurity 
business rises to the level of national importance. On remand, the Director should fully analyze the 
evidence submitted to determine whether the Petitioner has met the requirements of the first prong of 
the Dhanasar framework. 
The Director's analysis of the second prong under the Dhanasar framework also contains deficiencies 
relating to analysis of the evidence. The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to 
the individual. To determine whether they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we 
consider factors including, but not limited to: their 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. Id. at 890. 
In denying the petition, the Director listed evidence considered under the second Dhanasar prong and 
then generally listed evidence or information that the Petitioner purportedly did not provide. The 
Director did not provide an analysis of evidence submitted initially or in response to the RFE. The 
Director also made inaccurate statements concerning the Petitioner's previous experience. For 
example, the Director asserted that the Petitioner's "experience is not in ( or sufficiently similar to) the 
proposed endeavor"; the record, however, shows that the Petitioner has previous educational and work 
experience in the field of cybersecurity and intends to continue working in that field in the United 
3 
States. In addition, although the record contains evidence of the Petitioner's cybersecurity business 
in Colombia, the Director stated that there "is no documentation in the record indicating that the 
petitioner has ever owned or established a business." As another example, the Director stated, without 
explanation, that an expert opinion letter was "not probative," and the denial did not provide an 
analysis of recommendation letters submitted. Because the Director did not discuss specific evidence 
or the Petitioner's proposed endeavor itself: it is not clear how she reached conclusions concerning the 
Petitioner's positioning to advance the endeavor. On remand, the Director should fully analyze the 
evidence submitted to determine whether the Petitioner has met the requirements of the second prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Director's analysis of the third prong under the Dhanasar framework contains similar deficiencies 
relating to analysis of the evidence. The third prong requires a 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, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light 
of the nature of the individual's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either 
for them to secure a job offer or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other 
qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and 
whether the national interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor 
certification process. In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish 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. Id. at 890-91. 
The Director's decision did not provide any analysis of why the Petitioner did not meet the 
requirements of the third prong of the Dhanasar framework, stating only that the Petitioner "has not 
established 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." 
Upon review, we conclude that the Director's decision lacks a detailed analysis of the evidence 
submitted and does not fully explain the reasons for the unfavorable conclusions. An officer must 
fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity 
to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must 
fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to 
challenge the determination on appeal). Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner was not adequately 
informed of the Director's reasons for determining that he did not meet the requirements of the second 
or third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. In addition, the Director's finding that the Petitioner met 
the first prong of this framework similarly lacks sufficient analysis. 
Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter to the Director for 
further consideration and issuance of a new decision. On remand, the Director should review the entire 
record, including the Petitioner's response to the RFE and his submission on appeal, to determine 
whether he has established eligibility under each of the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. The 
Director should consider the Petitioner's evidence and arguments provided in support of each prong 
and provide an analysis of that evidence to support the conclusions reached. 
4 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5