The Petitioner, an information security specialist, seeks 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. § l l 53(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver ofthe job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver ofthe required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so.
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof 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 dismiss the appeal.
Law
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. If a petitioner establishes 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." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that 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;
- The alien is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Analysis
The Petitioner earned a bachelor's degree in mechanical design and manufacturing in China in 2000. After relocating to Canada, the Petitioner earned a master's degree in engineering, speciallizing ii information systems security, in 2010. This degree is equivalent to a U.S. master's degree. In he worked as a technical support analyst for various employers from 2007 to 2020, and thereafter as an information technology (IT) administrator for a clothing manufacturer in I I The record demonstrates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. SCOPS determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the prongs of the Dhanasar national interest test.
The Petitioner stated that his "proposed endeavor is to digitally transform the administrative and operational business processes of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by providing technological services and IT solutions. This involves bolstering information systems security with the ultimate objective of enhancing the cybersecurity posture of these companies, thereby improving their project management and security standards."
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the alien 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. The Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit because it will "enhanc[ e clients'] participation in the global economy and address[] their substantial IT expenditures," and "significantly enhanc[ e] their cybersecurity posture and resilience."
In the denial notice, SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner did not describe the proposed endeavor in sufficient detail to establish its substantial merit and national importance. SCOPS stated: "Employment as an information system engineer working on cybersecurity is not an endeavor." We agree with the Petitioner that he provided sufficient information about the proposed endeavor to show its substantial merit; he did more than merely state an intention to work as an information security specialist.
But we agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the alien will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n p. 3 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 initially stated four ways that the proposed endeavor has national importance:
- It will maintain the U.S. position as a dominant leader in technical innovation, by addressing weaknesses in information systems security for SMEs, thereby having national and global implications.
- It will enhance US economic stability and technological development by enhancing the resilience of SMEs against cyber threats, thus having substantial positive economic effects.
- The Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that between 2022 and 2032, Information Technology Analysts will be increased by 32%.
- It will supply the talent the United States urgently needs under USCIS policy's unique considerations for STEM professionals.
To corroborate the above assertions, the Petitioner cited various online articles and government publications. The Petitioner's statements and evidence, however, discussed the cumulative importance and impact of the entire field, rather than indicating that the work of any one professional in that field has a broad impact.
The Petitioner also stated that his "work would be disseminated throughout the SME sector," but he provided no details about how this dissemination would occur.
In a request for evidence (RFE), SCOPS stated that the Petitioner's "evidence ... does not establish that [his] endeavor's potential prospective impact has national or global broader implications within [his] field."No broader implications shown SCOPS also observed that "the national interest waiver is not a blanket waiver for an entire field," and therefore general statements about the importance of a given field cannot suffice to show that an individual working in that field qualifies for a national interest waiver.
In response, the Petitioner quoted Dhanasar: "Even ventures and undertakings that have as their focus one geographic area of the United States may properly be considered to have national importance." Id. at 889. Nevertheless, the burden is on the Petitioner to establish the necessary impact. The Petitioner acknowledged that his "services are customized to address each client's unique needs," but contended that his "methodologies, models, technologies and staff training ... are designed for broad applicability and adaptability across the whole cybersecurity sector ... , creating a replicable, impactful model for similar organizations across the industry."
The Petitioner did not explain how his methods are substantively different from those of others in his field, or establish how his work would reach a sufficiently broad audience to serve as a widelyemulated model in his field. The Petitioner also did not show how "services ... customized to address each client's unique needs" could nevertheless constitute "a replicable ... model" to be more widely p. 4 implemented. Instead, the Petitioner submitted additional general information about small businesses and cybersecurity.
The Petitioner's response to the RFE included a business plan that repeated, sometimes modified, and expanded on information he had previously provided in a statement submitted with the petition. The business plan entails the creation of a company based in I ICalifornia. The basic endeavor described in the business plan continues to be "the delivery of personalized cybersecurity strategies tailored to [clients'] specific industries and operational models."
The business plan also indicated that in its fifth year, the company would have 15 employees, "significantly more than the national average of two employees per establishment in the IT Security Consulting Industry." A stated intention to hire an above-average number of workers is not enough, by itself: to establish national importance through "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated in Dhanasar. Id. at 890. The Petitioner did not establish that this level of employment would have "broader implications," economically or otherwise. An advisory letter from an economist repeats several ofthe Petitioner's claims but does not show that the impact ofthe Petitioner's proposed endeavor meets Dhanasar's threshold.
The business plan and advisory opinions submitted in response to the RFE rely heavily on general assertions about the importance of small businesses and of cybersecurity, with no persuasive explanation as to how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have a significant impact beyond his clients.Support letters generic or unsupported
SCOPS denied the petition, stating:
While we agree that cybersecurity is important and has great value, the beneficiary has not established how their role as an information system engineer, will have a broader impact beyond their future place of employment. Furthermore, although the value of qualified information system engineers are important, the value is collective rather than specific to the beneficiary's proposed endeavor.
While the field of cybersecurity is important in the United States, the national interest waiver is not a blanket waiver for an entire field. You must establish that your specific endeavor has a broader impact on the field of cybersecurity.
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats general, field-wide information, such as the total investment that all SMEs made in "IT hardware, software, and services." The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor would affect all SMEs, and therefore statistics relating to all SMEs are not directly relevant to his proposed endeavor. The collective importance of cybersecurity to SMEs does not establish that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor reaches the level of national importance. SCOPS noted that the teaching activities of the petitioner in Dhanasar appeared to lack broader scope and impact. Id. at 893. Likewise, in the present case, the potential impact ofthe Petitioner's proposed endeavor appears to be heavily focused his own company's clients.
The Petitioner correctly observes that a proposed endeavor need not affect the entire United States in order to meet the national importance prong under Dhanasar. Nevertheless, meeting that prong entails more than identifying some degree of benefit that the endeavor would produce. When Congress established the EB-2 immigrant classification, it acknowledged that aliens eligible for that classification would "substantially benefit ... the United States." Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. Nevertheless, the same statute incorporates a job offer requirement. The Petitioner does not qualify for a waiver ofthat requirement by showing that some would benefit from his work. As SCOPS noted, there is no blanket waiver for cybersecurity professionals, and therefore general assertions about the value of cybersecurity do not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest waiver. We agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
The second Dhanasar prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the alien. To determine whether an alien is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record ofsuccess 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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. We agree.
When the Petitioner filed the petition, he cited his academic degrees and "24 years of progressive professional experience as a Technical Support" (sic). As evidence of his "record of success," the Petitioner cited two advisory opinion letters from individuals who reviewed and commented on the Petitioner's employment history.
When he filed the petition, the Petitioner stated that he planned to establish a "consultancy" in D I ICalifornia, to "provide independent technological services" to SMEs. The Petitioner provided financial projections for the first three years of operations and stated that his business would have twelve employees at the end of those three years.
The Petitioner stated, at the time of filing, that he "has already drawn up a profosal for his proposed endeavor, and he has received . . . a letter of interest from [an] Associate at Iwho has demonstrated interest in employing the Petitioner's consultancy services" and who is "looking to work on the Petitioner's undertaking." The cited communication is not a letter ofinterest. Rather, it appears to be a screen capture of a message sent via a platform such as Linkedln. The message reads, in part: I am reaching out because we are currently working with a client who wishes to learn more about compute [sic] management SaaS. More specifically, they wish to gain insights on appetites and expectations around cloud-based infrastructure systems management offerings and features.
Given your experience, I thought you might be a great fit!
Would you be interested in this ~1-hour phone consultation?
From its wording, the message appears to be a fairly generic solicitation. It does not mention the Petitioner's proposed endeavor specifically, or cybersecurity in general, nor does it indicate that the writer had read any proposal by the Petitioner.
The Petitioner submitted copies of six certificates, listing credentials such as Microsoft Certified Professional Systems Engineer and Cisco Certified Network Associate. The only certificate to specifically mention cybersecurity is a 2024 certificate from the International Information Security Certification Consortium, which states that the Petitioner "met all of the certification requirements" and passed "the required competency examination" to be "Certified in Cybersecurity." The Petitioner asserted that these certificates establish his progress in achieving the proposed endeavor, but he did not explain how this is so. The certificates show the Petitioner's credentials in certain aspects ofIT, but they do not establish progress in establishing a consultancy service.
In response to SCOPS' RFE, the Petitioner cited his newly-written business plan. The plan does not indicate what concrete steps the Petitioner had taken to establish his consultancy business. SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner has not established progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor. We agree.
On appeal, the Petitioner states that he has submitted letters describing his past work in IT and cybersecurity, and that SCOPS imposed too high a threshold of evidence. The record demonstrates that the Petitioner is qualified to work in the field of cybersecurity, but the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is not simply to continue his employment in that field.
Rather, the Petitioner's endeavor is to establish, staff: and administer a new business. The Petitioner does not claim to have done so in the past and the record contains no evidence to that effect. Rather, his entire career has been working in IT and technical support for established employers. In this respect, the proposed endeavor constitutes a marked departure from his past experience.
In the denial notice, SCOPS stated that the record lacks "feasible plans for financial support, to include living expenses within the United States." The Petitioner asserts that SCOPS "neglected to consider the financial evidence submitted by the Petitioner." We will consider that evidence here. Initially, the Petitioner submitted statements from his employer's retirement and profit-sharing plans to show that he had set aside about $66,000 "to cover the professional expenses associated with launching [his] business consultancy." The Petitioner did not specify which expenses this amount would cover; the plan submitted with the petition shows $610,000 in first-year costs.
In the RFE, SCOPS asked for "[ d]ocumentation reflecting feasible plans for financial support." The Petitioner's response indicated that he intended to invest $400,000 in startup costs. To show that he had the necessary funds, the Petitioner submitted:
- A new statement from the Petitioner's profit-sharing plan, showing a balance slightly below us $38,000;
- A statement from the Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) that the Petitioner had established for his children, valued at about US $34,000; and
- Documentation relating to a condominium in I I that the Petitioner had purchased in August 2024, after he filed the petition, for about US $368,000.
The Petitioner did not establish that these assets are realistically available for other purposes. For example, the Petitioner did not show that the funds in the RESP can be withdrawn for any purpose other than its beneficiaries' educational expenses. He also did not show that he fully owns the recentlypurchased condominium, such that the full sales proceeds would be available for investment in the proposed endeavor instead of repayment of a mortgage or loan.No interest from users, customers or investors
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that he has submitted "sufficient details regarding his plans ... for funding the establishment of his endeavor business" and "evidence of his feasible financial support." The submitted evidence appears to indicate that the Petitioner would have to liquidate a number of long-term investments already committed to his retirement and his children's education in order to fund the endeavor, and this documentation does not attest to his own financial support while the company would be in its initial stages.
Furthermore, when we compare the initial plan submitted with the petition to the more formal business plan submitted in response to the RFE, some ofthe figures match but others show significant revisions. For instance, the Petitioner initially projected a net profit of $524,000 for the first year. The later business plan shows less than half that amount, at $259,501, partly due to an increase in anticipated operating expenses and partly because the initial estimate does not appear to have taken taxes into consideration. These variations raise questions about the reliability of the claimed figures. For the above reasons, we agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner's education and experience are not sufficient to establish that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to show that he fully satisfies the first and second prongs of the Dhanasar national interest test. Detailed discussion of the remaining third prong cannot change the outcome of this appeal. Because the Petitioner has not otherwise established eligibility for the classification sought, we need not reach, and therefore reserve, the third Dhanasar prong. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor, and that he is well positioned to advance that endeavor. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
NOTICE: This constitutes the final decision in this matter. The filing of a motion will not postpone the effect of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iv). Aliens who are not lawfully present, or who are otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may be subject to the commencement of removal proceedings under section 240 ofthe Act through the issuance of a Form I-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.