dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 23, 2024 In Re: 34286195 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a civil engineer and construction manager, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional or a person of exceptional ability, 
as well as a discretionary national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 
classification. 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 although the 
Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. This matter is now before us on appeal, which we review de novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 
26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing his eligibility 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I.LAW 
To be eligible for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first establish eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 visa classification, as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional 
ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(A), (B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(l). 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they warrant a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. MatterofDhanasar, 26 I&NDec. 884,889 (AAO 2016), provides 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions, which states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner establishes that: (1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) they are well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and (3) on balance, 
waiving the job offer and thus labor certification requirements would benefit the United States. Id. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in holding 
that USCIS' decision on a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found, and the record-including the Petitioner's 2011 bachelor of engineering degree 
from Pakistan, school transcript, and academic evaluation as well as former employer letters-shows, 
that he qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional based on 
his U.S.-equivalent bachelor's degree and at least five years of progressive post-degree experience in 
the specialty. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(k)(l)-(2), (k)(3)(i)(B). 
The remaining issue on appeal is whether he warrants a discretionary national interest waiver under 
the Dhanasar framework and its requisite three prongs, any one of which is dis positive. The Director 
first noted that the Petitioner's vaguely defined proposed endeavor impedes Dhanasar evaluation. 
Considering the overall evidence, including his assertions below and on appeal, we conclude that the 
proposed endeavor is sufficiently detailed to form a basis for review under the Dhanasar framework. 2 
The Director ultimately found that although the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record 
did not show it has national importance and thus the Petitioner did not meet Dhanasar' s first prong. 3 
On appeal, he does not identify specifically any factual or legal error in the Director's denial, but 
reiterates his eligibility for a discretionary national interest waiver. We conclude that the evidence 
does not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Under the Dhanasar framework, the first prong, "substantial merit" and "national importance," 
focuses on the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake. Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The endeavor's merit under this prong may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, 
entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In assessing whether the 
proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
The Petitioner intends to continue to work as a civil engineer and construction manager in this country. 
He plans to develop and implement innovative technologies and construction methods, including in 
disaster-resilient and durable infrastructure fields, and use new materials he claims will enhance 
efficiency and reduce construction waste in an environmentally safe and sustainable manner. 
Although the proposed endeavor as a civil engineer and construction manager with research interest 
in infrastructure construction subfields has merit, the evidence does not show it would have significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers, have substantial positive economic impact in this country, broadly 
impact the industry on national or global level beyond his potential employer and customers, or 
otherwise have broader economic or societal implications rising to the level of national importance. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider and look for 
evidence of the endeavor's potential prospective impact. Id. In reasserting that his proposed endeavor 
has national importance, the Petitioner relies on his academic credentials and past experience as a civil 
and engineer and construction manager in Pakistan as indicated in his resume, personal statements, 
various support letters, and general industry information he references in his statements noting the 
industry's significance. He further reiterates that, given his background and expertise, which be claims 
2 We do not further address the issue of specificity of the proposed endeavor here asDhanasar's national importance prong 
is dispositive of this appeal, as discussed below. 
3 The Director further determined that the evidence also did not satisfy Dhanasar's second and third prongs. 
2 
qualifies him for employment as a civil engineer and construction manager, and the industry's high 
demand for experienced individuals, his proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic 
and societal impact. But the above evidence and assertions focus on his skills and profession, which 
relate to Dhanasar's second prong and pertain to whether he is well positioned for his endeavor and 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
For assessing the national importance of a proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong, we look 
to its "potential prospective impact" and evaluate whether the specific endeavor he proposes to 
undertake has broader national significance, rather than the importance of his profession or industry 
in which he proposes to engage. Id. at 889. Here, as a civil engineer and construction manager, he 
proposes to develop and implement innovative methods using new materials and technologies that he 
claims will enhance construction efficiency, decrease waste, and improve infrastructure quality and 
safety in an environmentally sustainable manner. However, the Petitioner does not claim, and the 
record does not contain any evidence, that he himself developed or will develop new materials and 
technologies that will broadly impact the industry in the United States. Further, the record does not 
contain any evidence that his claimed "innovative construction methods" he may have acquired in 
Pakistan were or would be recognized or adopted by the industry here or otherwise have far-reaching 
implications. Although we acknowledge that the proposed endeavor could have a positive impact on 
his career, he has not persuasively explained, and the record (primarily including his assertions, 
recommendation letters, "appreciation" letters, and the general industry information) does not show 
how his proposed work as a civil engineer and construction manager would have the national or global 
implications for the U.S. industry as he claims, beyond his potential employer and clients. 
The record, for instance, lacks detail and probative evidence on the claimed economic impact and 
hiring potential, such as financial or employment projections, directly attributable to the proposed 
endeavor. Apart from generally stating that he "can immediately and significantly contribute to the 
US employment market," he does not specifically claim he himself will employee U.S. workers or that 
his position with a future company will result in hiring of U.S. workers. Further, he does not specify, 
and the record lacks independent evidence as to, how his proposed work otherwise stands to impact 
U.S. economy or benefit economically depressed areas. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890 (holding that 
proposed endeavors with "significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or "substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area" may indicate national importance). 
Other than the general assertions that "construction and infrastructure projects remain necessary in all 
economic conditions" and that he plans to "empower" unspecified "underserved communities" by 
focusing on vital projects such as "clean water, sanitation facilities, or safe and secure housing," the 
record lacks evidence of any interest from any individual or company in his proposed endeavor and 
how he will specifically facilitate and elevate the significance of his proposed work to a national level. 
Further, he does not delineate his future research and development goals and how he will be able to 
achieve these goals. He nonetheless asserts on appeal that his endeavor would address national and 
even global infrastructure needs and act "as a catalyst for economic growth" by "championing 
innovative construction practices and technologies." As explained, however, the record lacks detailed, 
objective evidence as to how he will achieve the stated goals he claims would have significant benefits. 
The aspirational assertions based on his background, support letters, and industry information thus do 
not demonstrate his proposed endeavor would have "significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or 
"substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. 
3 
He continues to rely on his professional qualifications and the importance of the construction industry. 
But as noted, the importance of a proposed endeavor is determined by its potential prospective impact, 
not by the industry or occupation it involves. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-890. The purpose of the 
national interest waiver therefore is not to facilitate a U.S. job search where there may be job demands. 
Anyone seeking this waiver must establish that "the specific endeavor" they propose to undertake has 
national importance. Id. Although he also states that, in addition to seeking work in this country, he 
will "train others," he does not provide any detail or evidence as to the educational aspect of his 
endeavor and its related potential impact. Id. at 893 (holding that the petitioner's work as a science 
teacher, while found to have merit, did not qualify him under Dhanasar's first prong because the 
evidence did not establish such work would impact science education more broadly). 
While we acknowledge his desire to contribute to the U.S. construction industry and its economy, the 
Petitioner has not established with specific, probative evidence that his proposed endeavor will have 
broader implications in his field, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or have substantial 
economic or societal effects beyond his future employer and clients. He has not met Dhanasar' s 
national importance prong and thus has not established his eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 75-76 (stating that petitioners bear the burden of establishing 
eligibility, and under this standard we consider the quality, such as relevance and probative value, of 
the evidence, in addition to quantity); Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989).4 
As the identified ground for denial, the Petitioner's inability to satisfy Dhanasar's first prong is 
dispositive of this appeal, we do not address here the Director's determinations as to the second and 
third Dhanasar prongs for a national interest waiver. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
(stating that agencies are not required to reach issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 The Petitioner submits additional recommendation and "appreciation" letters and other documents pertaining to his past 
experience in Pakistan. However, the Director's request for evidence specifically notified him of the evidentiary deficiency 
and provided him an opportunity to supplement the record. He also submitted below similar support letters and work 
related documents. We thus decline to consider the new appeal documents. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l l) (requiring all 
requested evidence be submitted together at one time); Matter ofSoriano, 19 T&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (declining to 
consider new evidence on appeal where the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable 
opportunity to provide it before the denial). Even if we were to consider the new documents, they do not specifically 
pertain to the claimed national importance of the proposed endeavor, and he does not persuasively explain their relevance. 
4