dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 30, 2024 In Re: 29667365 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a civil project manager, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or of exceptional ability. 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 the record did not 
establish that 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. 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 dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petition 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. 
Whilst 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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that USCIS may as a matter of discretion 
grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the labor certification, to a petitioner 
classified in the EB-2 category if they demonstrate that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance, (2) the noncitizen 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 
noncitizen 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen 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, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petition to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director observed that the Petitioner was eligible for EB-2 classification as an individual who is 
a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. But the Director ultimately concluded that 
the Petitioner's substantially meritorious 1 proposed endeavor did not rise to a level of national 
importance as required by the first prong of Dhanasar. The Director also determined that the 
Petitioner was not well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. And the Director concluded 
that on balance of applicable factors, a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor 
certification, would not be beneficial to the national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director's decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of 
law and facts. Specifically, the Petitioner contends the Director applied a higher standard of proof 
than the preponderance of the evidence standard and asserts the Director did not consider the totality 
of the evidence the Petitioner submitted. They state on appeal that the evidence they submitted in the 
1 The Petitioner submitted numerous articles, web pages, and reports from non-profit research organizations and executive 
level agencies related to civil road and facility inrrastructure in the United States. This evidence supported the overall 
merit of the Petitioner's proposed field of endeavor. So the Director correctly concluded the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor had substantial merit. But, contrary to the Petitioner's asse1tions, the same evidence does not adequately describe 
how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would broadly implicate matters rising to a level of national importance 
in constrnction, infrastrncture, and civil engineering as we will discuss below. 
2 
record prior to and at appeal demonstrated that the Petitioner meets all three prongs under the 
Dhanasar framework and merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer, and thus the labor 
certification, in the national interest. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
In Part 6 of the initial petition, the Petitioner described their endeavor as a "civil project manager" 
who would "[ d]irect engineering activities, ensuring compliance with environmental, safety, or other 
governmental regulations. Manage and direct the construction, operations, or maintenance activities 
at project site. Inspect project sites to monitor progress and ensure conformance to design 
specifications and safety or sanitation standards. Provide technical advice to industrial or managerial 
personnel regarding design, construction, program modifications, or structural repairs. Estimate 
quantities and cost of materials, equipment, or labor to determine project feasibility." Specifically the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as described in their statements and their business plan, sought to 
benefit the overall U.S. economy through its participation in building construction project 
development, reducing the cost and usage of construction materials, and addressing demand for 
affordable housing. The Petitioner expected that their proposed endeavor would generate economic 
benefits such as direct and indirect job growth. 
B. National Importance 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate their proposed endeavor was of national 
importance because the Petitioner did not demonstrate the broader implications of the proposed 
endeavor or its potential positive economic effects. For the below reasons, we agree. 
In determining national importance under Dhanasar, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In 
Dhanasar, we farther noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that 
"[ a ]n undertaking may have a 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. What is critical in determining the national importance under Dhanasar is whether the 
proposed endeavor has a potential prospective impact with broader implications which rise to the level 
of national importance. So it is not what duties or what occupation the noncitizen will fill or perform 
but their actual plan with their occupation and duties that is examined. 
As stated above, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to continue their career as a "civil project 
manager" at their wholly owned and operated entity.__ _______ ___, for the benefit of the 
"clients contracting" them for the "development, design, and construction of a project." The Petitioner 
rooted their eligibility under this first prong of the Dhanasar framework by touting the purported 
byproducts of their prosecution of their proposed endeavor as mentioned above, namely benefitting 
the overall U.S. economy through participation in building construction project development, reducing 
the cost and usage of construction materials, addressing demand for affordable housing, and job 
creation and growth. The Petitioner submitted two personal statements, two business plans, their 
3 
curriculum vitae, academic documents, evaluations, and certificates, several letters of 
recommendation, two expert opinion letters, and several articles and reports from private and public 
sector entities. 2 The Petitioner contends that national importance is broadly implicated by the potential 
value of their continued work in their construction project development field of endeavor on behalf of 
the clients who may engage their services. 
Although the evidentiary standard in immigration proceedings is the lowest preponderance of the 
evidence standard, the burden is on the Petitioner alone to provide material, relevant, and probative 
evidence to meet that standard. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. A petitioner's burden of 
proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well as the ultimate burden of 
persuasion. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998); also see the definition ofburden 
of proof from Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (reflecting the burden of proof includes both 
the burden of production and the burden of persuasion). First, a petitioner must satisfy the burden of 
production. As the term suggests, this burden requires a filing party to produce evidence in the form 
of documents, testimony, etc. that adheres to the governing statutory, regulatory, and policy provisions 
sufficient to have the issue decided on the merits. 
The infirmity in the Petitioner's description of their endeavor is patent upon examination into the 
evidence and argument they introduced into the record. The Petitioner's evidence and argument do 
not help them carry their burden of production and persuasion because it does not relate to the proposed 
endeavor's national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner's personal statement essentially stresses that it is their execution of the proposed 
endeavor is what will elevate it to a level of national importance due to their continuous work in the 
field over 20 years. The Petitioner described the undertakings and objectives of their proposed 
endeavor. The Petitioner stated that their past work experience and achievements render their work 
in their proposed endeavor likely to achieve results that will benefit the United States national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner essentially attempts to convince us that their many years of progressive 
experience executing construction projects elevates any endeavor they propose to undertake in the 
United States raised to the level of national importance. They also highlight their self-professed status 
as an "accomplished profession with extensive training and proven experience in the field of civil 
engineering and construction management" as evidence that their proposed endeavor is 
"improv[ e] .... the civil infrastructure and service works" of the United States. But the Petitioner's 
claims are not persuasive. The Petitioner's argument spotlights a fundamental misunderstanding of 
the Dhanasar framework's first prong. The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor; not on the 
Petitioner's execution of that proposed endeavor. The Dhanasar framework is consequently 
unconcerned with the success of the proposed endeavor or the Petitioner's track record in their field 
of endeavor previously. The Petitioner's contentions about their successful past performance in the 
field of endeavor they propose, as well as evidence and information of their achievements and 
recognition, would better serve a demonstration of eligibility under the Dhanasar framework's second 
prong. So the Petitioner's contentions about their successful career-to-date, as well as evidence and 
information of their achievements and recognition such that they are, are irrelevant to an examination 
of their eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
The Petitioner's employment verification letters, letters from employers, and letters of 
recommendation did not reflect how the proposed endeavor implicates national importance because 
the letters focused on the Petitioner's past work. When evaluating the national importance of a 
proposed endeavor under the first prong of Dhanasar, we are concerned with its potential prospective 
or future impact. The Petitioner's demonstration of prior similar work does not have an influence on 
the proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact based on its national importance. 
From the outset, the Petitioner's business plan couches their endeavor in terms of targeting their 
services to "clients contracting" them for services, specifically in the State of Georgia. The Petitioner 
intends to target construction companies, individuals intending to build a house, and business and 
individuals intending to renovate their premises who may seek their services in construction industry 
consulting and construction project management. The Petitioner highlights productivity issues in 
construction, the "aging U.S. infrastructure," the importance of construction project management and 
civil engineering, U.S government initiatives for improvement of U.S. infrastructure, construction 
problems in Georgia, the job market gap, a rising residential market, the size and importance of the 
construction industry for the U.S. economy, and the need for affordable housing as issues that their 
proposed endeavor can address at a level broadly implicating matters of national importance. 
The Petitioner in essence asserts that their construction industry consulting and construction project 
development and management activities in the State of Georgia will have broader implications rising 
to a level of national importance. However, the Petitioner does not connect their work to any broader 
implications to the field outside of the work they are specifically doing for their target market. The 
Petitioner expressed ambitious plans to expand their services beyond a locality in the State of Georgia, 
to the entire State of Georgia and to the United States at large thereafter. But as we said above, it is 
not required that the benefit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor by and through its activities extend 
beyond the State of Georgia's geographical bounds. Broader implications can reach beyond a 
particular proposed endeavor's geographical locus and focus. The relevant inquiry however is whether 
the broader implications apply beyond just narrowly conferring the proposed endeavor's benefit. The 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how conferring the benefit to their clients grows beyond their clients 
alone. 
The Petitioner asserts that the business plan contained research and data analysis demonstrating a clear 
understanding of the economic conditions of the target area of the proposed endeavor, the State of 
Georgia. Consequently, the Petitioner contends that they have demonstrated the positive economic 
benefits of their proposed endeavor. However, the evidence in the record does not reflect that the 
State of Georgia as a whole is an economically depressed area. Nor does the evidence in the record 
identify or support any specific economically depressed area in the State of Georgia of special interest 
to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. And other than describing a potential to achieve the 
construction objectives of the individuals or businesses engaging the Petitioner for their construction 
consulting and construction project development and management services, the Petitioner's business 
plan does not sufficiently demonstrate the potential prospective economic impact of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor to their field at large. The evidence in the record does not sufficiently demonstrate 
how performing the proposed endeavor's services in the State of Georgia would broadly implicate 
matters rising to a level of national importance in the field of construction consulting or construction 
project development and management. 
5 
And the Petitioner anticipates a hiring spree to staff their proposed endeavor stemming from increasing 
gross and net income and resulting in increasing expenditures on salary. But we observe that the 
Petitioner submitted two business plans in the record with widely varying figures on job creation and 
financial data without explanation. So it is not clear from the record what the true magnitude of the 
Petitioner's anticipated job creation for the proposed endeavor is and where it would be located such 
that we can evaluate if it would have a substantial prospective positive economic effect commensurate 
with national importance. 
The Petitioner offered sufficient evidence to support the substantial merit of their proposed endeavor 
and offered the same evidence to support the national importance of their proposed endeavor. But not 
every endeavor that purports to address productivity issues in construction and an "aging U.S. 
infrastructure" adjacent to U.S government initiatives in the construction and infrastructure arenas in 
the United States is nationally important. We said in Dhanasar that we focus on "the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposed to undertake" and "look for broader implications" to determine the 
proposed endeavor's national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The evidence in the 
record did not adequately demonstrate how the Petitioner's activities broadly implicated matters 
related to infrastructure. As stated before, the Petitioner's target market is composed of construction 
companies, individuals intending to build a house, and business and individuals intending to renovate 
their premises. It is unclear how the Petitioner's residential, commercial, and industrial building of 
what is described as mostly dwelling places or places of business improves matters of importance to 
U.S. infrastructure. The record does not convincingly demonstrate how residential, commercial, and 
industrial buildings constructed efficiently or affordably as the Petitioner intends to do would support 
U.S. infrastructure in a manner rising to a level of national importance. The record does not contain 
evidence which would sufficiently support extrapolating the Petitioner's construction consulting and 
construction project development activities to determine whether the potential prospective impact of 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications or positive economic impact rising to a 
level of national importance for U.S. infrastructure matters. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. See Matter ofCaron Int 'I, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, the submission ofletters or opinion statements from 
experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. The Petitioner submitted 
two expert opinion statements. One was authored by rofessor emeritus civil 
engineering at.__ __________ __. The other was authored b professor 
emeritus civil and environmental engineering at Both opinion letters 
are dated December 22, 2022 . .________ .....,opinion focused on the Petitioner's "ability and 
achievements as an accomplished contributor in the field of Civil Engineering." I I 
opinion focused on the Petitioner's "ability and achievement as an accomplished contributor in the 
field of the Construction industry." But these opinion statement do not illustrate how the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor rises to a level impacting national importance either. 
In the first instance, we note that both authors are focused on the Petitioner's "ability and achievement" 
in rendering their opinions. But as we stated previously the first prong focuses on the proposed 
endeavor. So, a petitioner's "ability and achievement" is not a relevant consideration to evaluate the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
6 
Moreover, each both authors try root the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in 
the importance of the construction or infrastructure or civil engineering fields. But in evaluating 
national importance we are not concerned with the importance of the field; we are evaluating the 
specific proposed endeavor. And as we stated earlier, simply proposing an endeavor adjacent to an 
area of substantial merit or special concern to the United States does not such an endeavor nationally 
important as a default. Neither author strays from their descriptions of the importance of the 
construction, infrastructure, and civil engineering fields to evaluate the Petitioner's specific endeavor 
and how it can have a prospective positive impact from the broader implications of its specific 
contributions to the construction, infrastructure, or civil engineering fields. Nor does either author 
sufficiently describe positive economic impacts aside from listing financial statistics related to the 
industries relevant to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Or in other words, neither author 
convincingly demonstrates the impact of the Petitioner's endeavor in the context of the financial 
statistics they list so that a meaningful evaluation of the proposed endeavor's potential prospective 
impact can be made to determine if it raises to a level of national importance. And both authors discuss 
the impact of the construction industry, infrastructure projects, and civil engineering initiatives on the 
environment to assert a broad individual and societal benefit stemming from the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor. But neither author adequately describes how the Petitioner's commitment to efficient use 
of construction resources and reducing waste has broader implications to construction industry, 
infrastructure projects, and civil engineering initiatives beyond the entities engaging the Petitioner for 
their services which could be examined to determine if they rise to a level of national importance. 
In sum, the record does not contain relevant, probative, or material evidence establishing the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor has potential positive impact either through its broader implications to 
its field or its positive economic effects. So we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that 
their proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that they do not merit a favorable exercise of discretion to waive the requirement of a job 
offer, and therefore a labor certification. And we reserve the issue of whether the Petitioner 
demonstrated eligibility under the remaining prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. See INS 
v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25 and Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. So we dismiss the 
Petitioner's appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7