dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Architecture / Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 30, 2024 In Re: 31284202 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner is an architect intending to work as a project manager in the civil engineering and 
construction industry. He seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of 
exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that despite qualifying for 
the underlying EB-2 visa classification as an advanced degree professional, 1 the Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. Applying the three-prong analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 
I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), the Director concluded that the Petitioner: (1) did not establish that 
his endeavor has national importance, 2 (2) did not demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance 
the endeavor, and (3) did not show that on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit 
the United States. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that his 
specific proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance 
requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Because the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary 
1 The record contains a degree certificate and corresponding transcript showing that the Petitioner completed required 
coursework and was awarded a bachelor's degree in architecture and urban planning in February 2003 . The record also 
contains evidence showing that the Petitioner attained at least five years of progressive experience in his specialty. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
2 The Director determined that the Petitioner's endeavor was shown to have substantial merit. 
to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 T&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
Further, we adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the national importance 
of the Petitioner's endeavor. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also 
Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming 
the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted 
the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that 
appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized 
consideration" to the case). 
In denying the petition, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's endeavor is to work in the 
construction field as a project manager, focusing on executing commercial, corporate, and residential 
projects. The Director determined, however, that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to 
show that his endeavor would broadly impact his field or that it has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise benefit the U.S. regional or national economy. The Director concluded that 
the record lacked evidence showing that the benefits from the Petitioner's endeavor would result in 
"substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that "the impacts of this work extend broadly beyond his serviced 
organizations" and further asserts that the "extensive labor" required to execute one of his projects 
will result in economic benefits of "tremendous value for local economies, communities, and the 
overall construction field." The Petitioner contends that his endeavor will also result in other benefits, 
such as enhanced productivity, improved standards of living, more employment opportunities, and 
increased investment potential. Although the Petitioner states that the articles and industry reports he 
submitted support the "broader implications" of his proposed endeavor, we disagree, given that the 
articles and industry reports do not mention the Petitioner's specific endeavor or discuss its specific 
implications, but rather broadly address topics that are loosely related to the endeavor, such as 
challenges in the STEM workforce and the importance of the construction industry. 
The Petitioner also contends that he will manage projects requiring "extensive labor" and thereby 
create "economic impacts" through capital spent on payroll, materials, and equipment. However, the 
Petitioner does not offer evidence, such as empirical data quantifying what is meant by "extensive 
labor," nor does he provide calculations of his endeavor's projected economic impact. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not provided sufficient supporting evidence to establish that he would operate on a large 
enough scale as to rise to the level of national importance. Nor has he established that the impact of 
his anticipated construction projects in terms of labor and income will result in "substantial positive 
economic effects" as contemplated in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
And while the Petitioner contends that he has submitted "extensive documentation" to establish the 
national importance of his endeavor, the only evidence he specifically discusses is the previously 
submitted articles and industry reports, which, for the reasons discussed above, we find insufficient to 
support the Petitioner's claim. Although the Petitioner has described the proposed endeavor, it is 
unclear how his personal statements serve as evidence of the endeavor's national importance. 
2 
Lastly, while the Petitioner points to previously submitted supporting letters, we disagree with his 
reliance on the letters as evidence of his endeavor's national importance. Despite any discussion of 
the Petitioner's professional achievements in the support letters, we note that the Petitioner's skills 
and achievements are factors to be considered under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. Evidence of the Petitioner's prior success as 
a project manager in the construction industry, while potentially useful in determining whether he is 
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, do not demonstrate the endeavor's national 
importance. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not provided evidence that his endeavor meets the national importance 
element of the first prong of the analytical framework in Matter ofDhanasar. As such, the Petitioner 
has not overcome the Director's conclusion regarding this issue. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3