dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 30, 2024 In Re: 34145371 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a civil engineer and entrepreneur, seeks second preference immigrant classification 
(EB-2) as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional 
ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 
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 the Petitioner qualified 
for the underlying EB-2 classification, but that she had not established 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 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 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. 
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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (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: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts to 
conclude that the national interest waiver determination is discretionary in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner "is eligible for second preference classification" but did not 
analyze the evidence in reaching this conclusion.2 Because we nevertheless find that the record does 
not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be 
in the national interest, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies second­
preference eligibility criteria. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating "courts and 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 
they reach"); Matter ofL-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). 
Regarding the Petitioner's request for a national interest waiver, the Director concluded that although 
the Petitioner established the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor and that she is well-positioned 
to advance the endeavor, she had not demonstrated the endeavor's national importance, or that, on 
balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of 
the labor certification. 
The Petitioner's endeavor is to work as a civil engineer and as an entrepreneur operating her own 
company, _______ The Petitioner stated that "[m ]y company will offer construction 
management services to engineering companies, real estate developers, and individuals looking to 
build their homes" and "[t]he company's focus will be to provide consulting and management to 
support sustainable construction projects." The Petitioner also indicated that the primary objective of 
her company "will be to enhance efficiency and reduce risks across all stages of a construction 
project - design, pre-construction, active construction, and post-construction." 
A. National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. In Dhanasar, we noted 
that "we 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." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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 
2 Here, the Director did not identify or analyze the educational evaluation or employment letters to determine that her 
degree is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree and that she has at least five years of progressive post­
baccalaureate experience in the specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A), (B). The Director also did not evaluate whether 
the evidence establishes the Petitioner's qualification as an individual of exceptional ability by meeting three out of the six 
criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 
2 
I 
economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. 
at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not assert that the Director erred in denying the petition; instead, she 
reiterates her claims regarding the national importance of her endeavor, such as its potential to employ 
American workers, its commitment to sustainable economic development and revitalization of 
economically depressed areas in Florida, and its contribution to boost the U.S. economy in general 
"through the adoption of innovative technologies and sustainable practices in the construction 
industry." In support, the Petitioner resubmits the expert opinion letter, her business plan, and letters of 
recommendation, already in the record. As new evidence, the Petitioner offers more articles and reports 
demonstrating the general importance of the engineering profession, the challenges of the infrastructure 
workforce, and the need for sustainable materials and techniques in construction projects. 
Although we recognize the value of the construction industry and sustainable practices in the 
construction field, merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake" and look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" 
of a petitioner's work. Id. at 889. The Petitioner submitted various background information about 
the construction field and industry, but she has not provided corroborating evidence that directly link 
her specific endeavor or her company to the overall economy's growth or its impact in economically 
depressed areas. 
The expert opinion letter from an adjunct professor of mathematics at the ________ 
Idoes not offer concrete and persuasive details concerning the endeavor's specific impact 
that demonstrates national importance. Instead, the letter largely dwells on the Petitioner's experience 
as a civil engineer, the importance of construction and project management in the field of construction, 
and the federal government's initiatives and priorities in improving the infrastructure and creating 
affordable housing. 
The business plan's five-year projection for the Petitioner's company anticipates a staffing growth from 
11 employees with a total payroll of $710,000 in year one to having 30 employees with a total payroll 
of $1,747,436 by year five. The plan also projects the company's total sales to grow from $1,220,000 
to $3,397,587 in five years. However, the Petitioner does not adequately explain how these staffing 
numbers or sale forecasts were calculated. While the business plan indicates that it has growth potential, 
they lack corroborating evidence to support that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting 
from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects." Id. at 
890. 
The Petitioner also contends that her company will contribute to bringing affordable housing to the 
economically disadvantaged population. However, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that 
the areas in which she has purchased lands or plans to build residential or commercial properties are 
economically depressed, that she would employ a significant population of workers in that area, or 
that her endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit through 
employment levels or building projects. 
3 
The letters of recommendations from the Petitioner's former work colleagues do not address the 
Petitioner 's proposed endeavor's specific impact or sustainability methodology that differs from or 
improve upon those already available in the United States, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a]n 
undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances." Id. at 889. The authors describe the Petitioner's skills and past 
experiences as a civil engineer, but this type of evidence relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
We acknowledge that any offer of goods or services has the potential to impact the economy; however, 
the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. The Petitioner must support 
her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 376. Here, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence, aside from the claims made in 
the business plan and her own statements, that her company's staffing levels and business activities 
stand to provide substantial economic benefits regionally or to the United States. The record is also 
insufficient in demonstrating that the Petitioner's innovative sustainable practices would impact the 
construction industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. For these 
reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor does not meet the national importance 
element of the Dhanasar' s first prong. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The Director determined that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her endeavor without 
analyzing the evidence under second prong of the Dhanasar 's analytical framework. We disagree 
with the Director's conclusion. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor focuses on her company and how 
her entrepreneurial activities will create jobs and positive economic impact to the United States. While 
the Petitioner's education in civil engineering and experience in the construction industry are sufficient 
for her continued employment in such field in the United States, we conclude the record does not 
demonstrate that she is well-positioned to advance her endeavor as an entrepreneur, as discussed 
below. 
In the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, we shift our focus from the proposed endeavor to 
the Petitioner. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The Dhanasar decision spelled out several factors 
which can be considered in determining whether a petitioner is well-positioned to advance their 
proposed endeavor, including several which are pertinent to entrepreneurial endeavors. These include 
a record of success in similar efforts, any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and the 
interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. See also 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (describing several 
categories of evidence that an entrepreneur may submit in support of a request for a national interest 
waiver, including ownership and an active or central role in a U.S.-based entity, documents showing 
a future intent to invest by an outside investor, incubator or accelerator participation, intellectual 
property, and relevant growth metrics for the startup company). In this case, the record lacks evidence 
which supports any of these factors. 
4 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has a degree in civil engineering from a university in Brazil 
and she has worked for construction companies throughout her career. Although the evidence includes 
many recommendation letters from former work colleagues, there is no evidence that she has 
previously attempted or succeeded in starting a new business. The letters only describe the Petitioner's 
knowledge and experience in the construction industry. 
In addition, the record lacks documentation of any progress towards achieving this endeavor, which 
might include the establishment of the business as a legal entity, registration of the business, securing 
any necessary funding, renting or purchasing physical space for the business, and the hiring of 
employees and contractors. 
Further, the record does not provide sufficient information regarding interest from potential investors 
or customers. The Petitioner included one letter of partnership from a home improvement company 
in I I Florida expressing its intent to partner with the Petitioner "for her upcoming civil 
engineering business in the United States." However, the letter vaguely refers to the Petitioner's 
"significant contributions to the field" or "a broad range of knowledge in the Construction industry" 
instead of discussing the details regarding the nature of collaboration, investment, or contract to 
confirm such business partnership. 
While "we do not ... require petitioners to demonstrate that their endeavors are more likely than not 
to ultimately succeed," Dhanasar at 890, here the record includes more information about the 
Petitioner's experience as a hard-working employee in the construction industry than about the 
prospects of her proposed business. Accordingly, we conclude the Petitioner has not established that 
she meets the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
C. Whether on Balance It Would be in the National Interest to Grant a Waiver 
As explained above, the third prong requires the 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. Here, the Petitioner claims on appeal that she is eligible for a waiver due to the 
impracticality of labor certification as there is no provision in the Department of Labor regulations 
permitting a self-petitioning entrepreneur to file a labor certification. However, as the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that she meets the first and second prongs of the Dhanasar framework, she is not 
eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion and further discussion of the balancing 
factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that her 
endeavor is of national importance or that she is well­
positioned to advance her endeavor. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown her eligibility for the 
national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5