dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 15, 2024 In Re: 30338142 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a civil engineer and project manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-
2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he 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. 
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 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. If a 
petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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, 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: 
1 See also 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner indicated that he intends to continue to work as a 
"project manager" operating his "own consultancy business in the U.S. dedicated to providing 
construction project management services in both the residential and public sector." He asserted that he 
plans "to help U.S. companies in the field of construction improve and optimize their existing processes 
in order to complete projects in a more timely manner, reduce costs, and increase revenue." 
The Petitioner submitted the business plan for his company. This business plan includes industry and 
market analyses, information about the company and its services, financial forecasts and projections, 
marketing strategies, a discussion of the Petitioner's education and work experience, and a description 
of company personnel. Regarding future staffing, the Petitioner's business plan anticipates that his 
company will employ 4 personnel in year one, 7 in year two, 10 in year three, 13 in year four, and 15 in 
year five, but he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for 
these additional employees. Furthermore, while his plan offers revenue projections of $405,000 in 
year one, $648,750 in year two, $960,000 in year three, $1,230,000 in year four, and $1,500,000 in 
year five, these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how 
they will be achieved. 
The record includes information about the state of U.S. infrastructure, the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Deal, the rise in new home construction, the U.S. construction industry, and the implications of U.S. 
national debt. In addition, the Petitioner provided articles discussing employment multipliers for the 
U.S. economy, the benefits of entrepreneurship to economic growth, and the ways construction 
professionals apply STEM in their everyday work. We agree with the Director that the submitted 
documentation establishes the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit. In determining national 
importance, however, the relevant question is not the value of infrastructure projects, entrepreneurship, 
or the Petitioner's general occupation; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner must still 
demonstrate the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also provided letters of support from C-J-L-P-, C-L-, L-B-P-, F-L-, L-A-R-, N-M-, M­
C-, J-G-S-, C-S-, R-C-, A-J-M-R-, C-G-, M-V-, E-J-H-, E-R-P-, E-L-, M-R-, J-A-, R-W-, R-R-, J-E­
S-, E-A-M-M-, and J-M- discussing his project management capabilities and construction experience. 
The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field, however, relate to the second prong of 
the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
2 
Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national 
importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that his undertaking "stands to sufficiently extend beyond [his] business and its clients to 
impact the industry or field more broadly." The Director also indicated that the Petitioner had not shown 
his proposed work "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial 
positive economic effects for our nation." 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor stands to "generate revenue within the 
country, directly and indirectly create jobs in the U.S., and yield positive economic effects related to the 
investment in infrastructure." He argues that his company "will be generating revenue in the country 
which will in tum raise the revenue raised by taxes in the U.S. without increasing the tax rate for 
Americans." The Petitioner also claims that his undertaking "will provide employment opportunities for 
individuals within local distressed areas, thus helping to reduce unemployment rates and supporting the 
region's economic development." He further indicates that his endeavor will "generate indirect 
employment" and "can cause large ripple effects" in the economy. 
The Petitioner also points to his construction knowledge and "highly specialized level of skills as a project 
manager," but the first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on the proposed endeavor; not on 
the Petitioner's specialized skills and knowledge in his field. The national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands separate and apart from his education, skills, and knowledge. 2 
In addition, the Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor "is of national importance because of the 
positive economic effects of investing in infrastructure" and "the benefits that it will offer the field of 
construction in the U.S." He asserts that his undertaking "will prove to be an invaluable asset to the 
overall construction industry and the entire domestic economy." The Petitioner further contends that his 
real estate development work stands to "bring substantial benefits to the U.S. in terms of overall economic 
development." The Petitioner also claims that his "company will help its clients to meet the demand for 
property development services, while consequently improving the real estate development and 
construction industries overall and, as such, increasing their contributions to the U.S. economy." He 
further argues that "his willingness to transfer and disseminate his skills and knowledge to the U.S. market 
will help create a qualified workforce, thereby contributing to meeting U.S. industry needs and benefiting 
the domestic economy." 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we 
further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]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 
2 See Dhanasar at 889-90. 
3 
economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance ." Id. 
at 890. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. While the 
Petitioner 's statements reflect his intention to provide construction project management services to his 
future clients, he has n ot offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar , 
we determined that the petitioner 's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national 
importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, we conclude the 
Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company 
and its clientele to impact his field, the construction industry , the real estate market' s housing supply, 
or the U.S . economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance . 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation . Specifically , he has not demonstrated that his company's future staffing levels and 
business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States. While 
the Petitioner claims that his company has growth potential, he has not presented evidence indicating that 
the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, although the 
Petitioner asserts that his endeavor stands to generate direct and indirect jobs for U.S. workers, he has not 
offered sufficient evidence that his endeavor offers Florida or the United States a substantial economic 
benefit through employment levels, tax revenue , or business activity. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner 's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. 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 
to the results they reach"); see also 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) . 
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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons , with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4