a senior site reliability engineer. Urequests the Beneficiary's classification under the employmentbased second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2).
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo '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 the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish a beneficiary is an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. Here, the Director concluded the Petitioner sufficiently established that the Beneificary qualified as an advanced degree professional.
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate that the beneficiary merits a discretionary waiver ofthe job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&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;
- The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with the Director's conclusion that the proposed endeavor, utilizing advanced computing technologies, including cloud computing, data processing, and analysis techniques, among other technologies, has substantial merit. However, while the Petitioner established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, they did not establish it had national importance.
The Petitioner stated the following regarding the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor:
The [Beneficiary's] proposed endeavor is to use advanced computing technologies, including cloud computing, data processing and analysis techniques and highperformance data storage and data centers, as well as data privacy, data security, and cybersecurity technologies, to implement user interface enhancements and optimizations for I I e-commerce platform. More specifically, the Beneficiary's endeavor is to leverage advanced computing and data privacy, data privacy, data security and cybersecurity technologies to develop personalized pricing strategies tailored to individual users' preferences, purchasing behaviors, and regional economic conditions, as well as targeted marketing campaigns and customized product offerings based on user preferences.
The Petitioner further indicated that the Beneficiary's work would allow it to enhance user experience, games, systems, and services, and allow the company to increase its revenue as well as further U.S. technological capabilities to "sustain the U.S. and global economy." The Petitioner asserted the proposed endeavor would "advance I I market dominance" leading to substantial U.S. economic benefits in the billions of dollars while bolstering consumer well-being.
In concluding the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance ofthe Beneficiary's proposed endeavor the Director reasoned it did not establish that his proposed endeavor would have national implications in his industry and stand to impact the field more broadly. The Director stated the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond the company and impact the engineering, e-commerce development, technology, and U.S. cultural interests broadly, commensurate with national importance. The Director further addressed the Petitioner's contention that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor would have an impact on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields important to the nation's p. 3 compettt1veness. The Director indicated it did not adequately show that one individual within the company would have a far-reaching impact on STEM fields and broader implications on federal technology initiatives.No broader implications shown In addition, the Director discussed submitted industry reports and articles provided by the Petitioner, concluding these reflected the importance ofthe Beneficiary's industry and its general relevance to govemment initiatives, but did not substantiate the specific broader impact of his work outside ofLJ and its clients. In sum, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor would have national or global implications within the field and have significant potential to employ U.S. workers and/or broadly enhance societal welfare, cultural or artistic enrichment, or a matter that the government has described as having national importance.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director misapplied the legal standard of review and disregarded probative evidence demonstrating the Beneficiary's eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner maintains they established the broader implications of the Beneficiary's work, including its positive economic and societal impacts and it asserts it submitted substantial evidence to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor would continue to advance the U.S. interest in attracting and retaining critically important STEM workers. The Petitioner also emphasizes the shortage of STEM workers in the Beneficiary's field. The Petitioner states it contributes several billion dollars in revenue annually to the U.S. economy and that the Beneficiary would contribute to this substantial economic impact. It further asserts the Beneficiary would contribute to several critical and emerging technologies, thereby having an impact on broader U.S. societal welfare. The Petitioner states the Beneficiary's contributions could lead to the implementation of similar advanced computing and data security solutions within e-commerce frameworks and potentially applied across various industries outside the gaming sector, and stimulate demand for skilled labor, including engineers, developers, security experts, and other technology professionals.
The standard of proof in this proceeding is preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" trne. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Upon de novo review of the record, we agree with the Director's evaluation of the evidence, and conclude the Petitioner did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor would have national importance as contemplated under the Dhanasar framework.
In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. Again, the determinative issue in this matter is not the national importance of the industry within which the Beneficiary works, namely cloud infrastrncture or similarly related subjects.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of the specific, proposed endeavor of the Beneficiary's work at Das a senior site reliability engineer. The Petitioner's assertions and the provided evidence explain the general value of the Beneficiary's asserted field and a shortage of workers, but it does not sufficiently demonstrate that his specific employment would likely lead to p. 4 breakthrough technologies in the digital entertainment industry or cloud infrastructure and that it would have a broad impact at a national level.Relied on a labor shortage
For instance, the Petitioner submitted of letters from industry experts and a professor to demonstrate the Beneficiary's integral role developing cloud infrastructure for streaming services. Although the letters discuss the Beneficiary's achievements, the letters do not sufficiently address the Beneficiary's specific endeavor or the broader national impact of his work at The letter of support from the senior regional director at discussed his work for a former employer, not and asserted that he "fills a critical shortage in the U.S. workforce in the U.S. technology sector/STEM fields," while also acknowledging his "record of software engineering achievements." However, this letter emphasized the Beneficiary's past accomplishments, and this evidence relates more to the second Dhanasar prong, being well-positioned, rather than the first prong ofthe Dhanasar framework specific to national importance.
The Petitioner also provided an expert opinion letter from S-S-, 2 a professor at I asserting that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor had national importance and explaining howLJ and the industry impacts the economy. The letter opines on the benefits of products and the global reach of its gaming systems through 123 million monthly active users as well as substantial revenue asserted as $24.5 billion in 2023. However, the letter does not sufficiently detail how the Beneficiary's role within would have a broad impact on these large use and revenue numbers. For example, the expert letter discusses the Beneficiary's implementation of"user interface enhancements and optimizations" and "sophisticated cloud-based infrastructure solutions," but it does not sufficiently describe these solutions and innovations and how his work would have a broad impact on the company's revenue, and in tum, the global or national economy. Without a financial analysis of the Beneficiary's work, it is unclear how the Beneficiary, as opposed toOwould reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the Beneficiary's position as a senior site reliability engineer would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation. While the Petitioner continues to make general claims regarding its standing within the digital entertainment industry and its high levels of revenue, it did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how the Beneficiary's individual employment would have any projected economic impact on job creation. For instance, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Beneficiary's contributions could lead to the implementation of similar advanced computing and data security solutions within e-commerce frameworks applied across various industries outside the gaming industry, thereby stimulating demand for skilled labor such as engineers, developers, security experts, and other technology professionals. However, again, the Petitioner did not properly articulate the Beneficiary's claimed innovations, nor how his work would extend beyond the gaming field, and in turn, lead to the substantial hiring of other technology professionals. Without such evidence, the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Beneficiary's services or position that would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
Lastly, the Petitioner further asserts that the Beneficiary's work would have a broader societal impact by contributing to critical and emerging technologies in the STEM fields. The Petitioner did not sufficiently explain and document how the Beneficiary's specific endeavor would help the United States stay ahead of strategic competitors and potential adversaries and contribute to the United States achieving or maintaining technology leadership or peer status among allies and partners. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l). As discussed, the Petitioner emphasizes many times on the record shortages of workers in the Beneficiary's field and how he could fill a need based on his expertise and experience. However, the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's employment at and his proposed endeavor would have a national impact on the United States' ability to remain ahead of strategic competitors or current and potential adversaries. More specifically, the Petitioner's did not substantiate that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor would likely substantially impact United States STEM competitiveness in cloud infrastructure on a national level.
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, and therefore we conclude that they have not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Because the identified basis for denial is dispositive ofthe Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (noting that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reached"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.