dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 10, 2024 In Re: 31492060 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a civil engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as either 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 
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 record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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, 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The first Dhanasar 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. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner intended to work in the United States as a civil engineer to direct 
the operations of his company, _____________ According to the Petitioner, he 
intended to "develop expert consulting and implementation services focused on providing assistance 
and progress to key industry sectors, thus positively impact[ing] both U.S. citizens and businesses." 
He planned to "utiliz[e] his expertise and acquired knowledge to provide consulting services in the 
areas of civil engineering, the construction sector, and laying of asphalt[,]" and "present a 
revolutionary solution in the area of sewage treatment." According to his business plan, he intended 
to "provide valuable expertise and advice on engineering projects, including a comprehensive analysis 
of structural and environmental factors to ensure safety and prevent contamination .... [ and] design[] 
systems that optimize the use of natural resources, while also considering budgetary constraints." In 
addition, the Petitioner claimed his company would use an "innovative sewage treatment system, the 
BIODIGESTOR, [to] revolutionize clients' wastewater management by providing sustainable 
alternatives to traditional septic tanks." 
In support of his endeavor, the Petitioner submitted a five-year business plan, articles and government 
publications discussing the importance of retaining STEM professionals in the United States and the 
economic importance of immigrants in the STEM field, letters of recommendation attesting to the 
Petitioner's past accomplishments in the field, publications discussing the Petitioner's past municipal 
projects, and several job offer letters.2 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
2 
The Director concluded that the record did not establish the substantial merit or national importance 
of the proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner generally asserts that the Director erred by not 
properly considering the evidence in the record, which included his five-year business plan, as well as 
articles and publications referenced in the record demonstrating the importance of the engineering 
field as "vital to the competitive success of the United States." In asserting his eligibility on appeal, 
the Petitioner reiterates the same claims provided in response to the Director's RFE, primarily relying 
on the importance of the civil engineering and construction fields to establish the national importance 
of his endeavor. 
Upon de novo review, we disagree with the Director's conclusion regarding the substantial merit of 
the Petitioner's endeavor and withdraw this determination. The record contains sufficient 
documentation, including industry reports discussing the importance of the civil engineering and 
construction fields to establish the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor. As such, we conclude 
that the record supports the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor. However, while the Petitioner 
has established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not demonstrate its 
national importance. 
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." Dhanasar 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. 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 asserts that the Director erred in failing to explain why the business plan submitted on 
record did not establish the national importance of his endeavor. While we acknowledge the brevity 
in which the Director discussed the Petitioner's business endeavor, the Director's decision does 
acknowledge the Petitioner's plans regarding his company. Moreover, for the reasons discussed 
herein, we agree that the business plan does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. And therefore, any alleged error is, at most, harmless. See generally Matter of O-R-E-, 
28 I&N Dec. at, 350 n.5 (citing Japarkulova v. Holder, 615 F.3d 696, 701 (6th Cir. 2010) (stating that 
error is harmless where there is no "reason to believe that ... remand might lead to a different result" 
( citation omitted))). 
On appeal, the Petitioner places a considerable emphasis on the importance of the civil engineering 
and construction fields to assert the national importance of his endeavor. For example, the Petitioner 
states that the construction industry "shapes the nation's infrastructure, provides employment 
opportunities, drives innovation, supports housing needs, and enables disaster recovery." 
Additionally, the Petitioner discusses the ongoing initiatives to repave the road systems in the United 
States and other infrastructure projects. As previously noted, however, the importance of an industry 
in which a petitioner intends to work is not sufficient to establish the national importance of an 
endeavor as we must focus on the broader implications of "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar at 889. The Petitioner has not identified how his 
proposed endeavor would meaningfully impact the industry or these initiatives. 
3 
And, while he claims that his company will "hold significant importance in the [ c ]onstruction 
[i]ndustry as it will contribute to the sector's growth, sustainability, and overall development," the 
record does not support these claims as the business plan does not establish his services will result in 
meaningful impact to the industry beyond his direct customers. We also recognize the Petitioner's 
goals in ensuring sustainable and eco-friendly sewage options, specifically utilizing the biodigesters 
method for ecofriendly sewage systems, but again the Petitioner has not shown how relying on this 
methodology would result in broader implications beyond the benefits realized by his customers. Nor 
has he explained whether his reliance on this methodology is akin to "improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances" contemplated in Dhanasar. Id. Generalized conclusory statements 
that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. 
Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). In the same way teaching activities proposed by the 
petitioner in Dhanasar were not shown to have a broader impact on the field of STEM education, 
activities which only benefit the Petitioner's prospective customers, like the offerings outlined in the 
business plan, would not result in broader implications in the field. Dhanasar at 893. 
The Petitioner's reliance on the shortage of civil engineers to establish the national importance of his 
endeavor is equally unpersuasive. He claims that, recognizing this shortage, his company will provide 
training and advancement to engineering professionals, yet the Petitioner does not explain how this 
would ameliorate the shortage of engineering professionals, nor does he provide sufficient details 
pertaining to this training, including whether this training would impact individuals outside of his 
company. Nevertheless, a shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the Petitioner's 
work nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision. Several of the Petitioner's claims 
of national importance could reasonably apply to any civil engineer, but Congress did not provide a 
blanket exemption for civil engineers with respect to the job offer and labor certification requirement. 3 
Foreign civil engineers are typically subject to this requirement and therefore the intrinsic benefits of 
operating a civil engineering and construction consulting company are not presumptive grounds for 
waiving that requirement. 
We have also reviewed the letters ofrecommendation and evidence of the Petitioner's prior projects, 
and while they establish the Petitioner has had a successful career, they do not establish the prospective 
impact of his proposed endeavor. For example, the letter from Mr. O-A-G-V- commends the Petitioner 
for his "great capacity in leading, organizing, and coordinating construction activities," however, the 
letter does not address the Petitioner's proposed company or explain the broader implications of his 
endeavor. While we recognize that the Petitioner has contributed to the development of critical 
projects, including in underserved areas, a petitioner's expertise and record of success are 
considerations under Dhanasar' s second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor 
to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
3 The U.S. Department of Labor addresses shortages of qualified workers through the labor certification process. A 
determination as to whether the benefits inherent in the labor certification process are outweighed by other favorable factors 
relates to the balancing analysis set forth under the third prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
4 
Finally, we also agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that the endeavor would 
have a "a significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or otherwise reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. The business plan states that, by its fifth 
year of operation, the company intends to employ 11 employees, have a total annual payroll expense 
of $795,063, and generate total annual sales of$1,287,490. Notably, however, the business plan does 
not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections. And, even if the endeavor's 
revenue and job creation projections were properly explained and supported with evidence, they do 
not establish that the endeavor would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance, as 
the Petitioner has not explained how these proposed employment numbers and revenue will impact 
the area of intended operations. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor would be of 
national importance, and he therefore does not meet the requirements of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs as well as a determination as to whether the Petitioner has met 
the requirements ofEB-2 classification. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("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. 
5