dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 13, 2024 In Re: 31124975 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a civil engineer in the construction industry, 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 classification. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner qualified for 
EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 
te1m "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 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Advanced Degree Professional 
Petitioners may qualify for EB-2 classification as members of the professions holding an advanced degree 
when they possess a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of 
progressive experience in the specialty, which is considered the equivalent of a master's degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as 
an advanced degree professional based on her degree and over five years of progressive work experience 
in her specialty. The Petitioner submitted copies of her engineering degree and academic transcript from 
_________ which shows she completed six terms of study in three years. A U.S . 
baccalaureate degree generally requires four years of education. Matter ofShah, 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1977). As a result, the Petitioner has not established that she holds a foreign equivalent to a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree. 
As the Petitioner was not notified of this issue and is otherwise ineligible for a national interest waiver, 
as we discuss below, we will not reach and reserve the issue of whether she qualifies for EB-2 
classification as an advanced degree professional. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
(stating that "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). 
B. National Interest Waiver: Substantial Merit and National Importance 
In her statements and business plan, the Petitioner described her proposed endeavor as launching a civil 
engineering and project management consulting company in the construction sector. She stated she 
would provide specialized services to companies and individuals working in commercial construction, 
and upon obtaining licensure, would become a general contractor. 
The Petitioner subsequently submitted evidence that she established __________
I lin Florida in 2023. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l); seealsoMatterofKatigbak, 14 I&NDec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971) (providing that "Congress 
did not intend that a petition that was properly denied because the beneficiary was not at that time qualified 
be subsequently approved at a future date when the beneficiary may become qualified under a new set of 
facts."). As the Petitioner's company was created after her petition was filed in 2022, we cannot consider 
evidence of her company when assessing her eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's 
merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, 
culture, health, or education. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit. We agree. 
2 
The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider 
its potential prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed endeavor has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other 
substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, or other 
broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. The Director determined the 
Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond individuals she 
would serve to impact her field more broadly. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims the Director did not evaluate all the evidence under the preponderance 
of the evidence standard, but instead imposed a "novel standard." The Petitioner does not specify what 
standard the Director applied. Although the Director did not discuss all the evidence in detail, the Director 
thoroughly addressed the relevant evidence and explained why it did not establish the national importance 
of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration of the 
petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim a 
petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence a petitioner presents. See 
Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022); Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir. 
1992); aff'd Morales v. INS, 208 F.3d 323, 328 (1st Cir. 2000); see also Pakasi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 
44, 48 (1st Cir. 2009); and Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009). 
The Petitioner asserts her proposed endeavor has "the potential of broadly impacting as Civil Engineer 
and Business Administration and promoting societal welfare," but she does not specify how her 
company's work would extend beyond individual entities and individuals to promote social welfare on a 
level of national importance. 
The Petitioner submits an article entitled "A Future Worth Building: What Tradeswomen Say about the 
Change They Need in the Construction Industry," which she claims shows the scarcity of women with 
her qualifications and level of experience in the construction industry. While this article addresses the 
work and challenges ofwomen in the construction industry, it does not mention the Petitioner or otherwise 
indicate any broader implications the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have within her field. When 
assessing national importance, we do not focus on issues facing an industry in general. Rather, we focus 
on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner initially submitted numerous support letters from previous employers and colleagues, and 
evaluations of her qualifications from two professors. The Director acknowledged the letters' praise of 
the Petitioner's past work and accomplishments, but explained the letters did not address her proposed 
endeavor or any broader implications of her work in her field. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter 
from ____ CEO and Owner of Mr. I I 
describes projects his company has worked on pursuant to a contract with the Petitioner's company, which 
he credits with "bringing gains in the US economy and workforce." The Petitioner also submits an 
October 2023 letter from _____ Owner of _________ who praises the 
Petitioner's work during their partnership over the last three months. As the Petitioner's work with Mr. 
I I and Mr. I I commenced in 2023 after the petition was filed in 2022, it cannot be 
considered in an assessment of the Petitioner's eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1 ); Matter ofKatigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
3 
In addition, the Petitioner submits a letter from CEO ofl I 
I I Ms. praises the Petitioner's past contributions to I Iincluding her recognition as 
one of the 10 best warehouse employees and as warehouse employee of the month and the Petitioner 
submits photographs of these awards. Ms. describes the Petitioner's promotion to a supervisory 
position and concludes she "left a legacy for the company." Ms. does not discuss any broader 
implications of the Petitioner's work in her field and does not mention her proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner states she is working on the growth of her company which "can generate benefits for this 
country: job creation, payment of taxes as Profit increases." In her business plan, the Petitioner stated 
she would employ one person as an assistant in the first year of establishing her company and would 
employ up to six people by the fifth year and employ 30 people indirectly. The Petitioner's business plan 
did not specify how these employment projections were calculated. On appeal, the Petitioner submits 
bank statements for her company account showing balances between $1,846 and -$21.60. As her 
company was established and the bank statements are all dated after the petition was filed, they are not 
indicative of her eligibility at the time of filing. See id. The record also does not indicate the Petitioner 
would operate in an economically depressed area or that her projected employment and tax payments 
would otherwise provide a substantial positive economic effect of national importance. 
The Petitioner further states she intends "to work as a Civil Engineer, General Contractor, Project 
Management to help to improve the U.S.A. commercial construction sector" and she "will contribute to 
the national and international interests of the U.S." The Petitioner submits evidence that she failed the 
examination for a general contractor license but has paid the fees to retake the test. The Petitioner does 
not specify how her licensure as a general contractor would extend beyond her work with future clients 
to have national or even global implications, or other broader implications in her field on the level of 
national importance. 
The Petitioner proposes to work with individual entities and the relevant evidence does not demonstrate 
that her company will have any broader influence on her field. 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Here, the Petitioner has not established 
that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her clientele to impact her field at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor has national importance, and she 
consequently does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of her eligibility under the 
second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also 
Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7 (BIA 2015). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, she 
has not demonstrated that she is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national 
interest as a matter of discretion. 
4 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5