dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 27, 2025 In Re: 37163643 
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 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 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 Christa's , Inc., 26 I&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. 
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. Matter ofDhanasar, 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 Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals 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. 
The first 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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner intends to serve as the CEO of Massachusetts-based company that will provide 
construction consulting services focused on efficiency, sustainability and technological integration. 
The Petitioner aims to offer consulting to improve the implementation of sustainability initiatives in 
the construction sector, advise construction project professionals on technological developments, and 
obtain general process improvements. 
The Director found the Petitioner qualified for underlying EB-2 classification. However, the Director 
determined that the Petitioner had not met the Dhanasar requirements for a waiver of a job offer and 
labor certification from a U.S. employer. Specifically, the Director concluded that the national 
importance of the endeavor had not been demonstrated under prong one, and that the Petitioner had 
not shown that a waiver of the job offer requirement would be beneficial as required by prong three. 
We agree the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the endeavor, as required under 
the first prong ofDhanasar. 
A. The Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that the Endeavor Has National Importance 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director failed to provide a detailed analysis of the evidence, 
particularly the business plan, when determining whether the proposed endeavor had national 
importance. He highlights that the Director was required to provide a reasoned decision that clearly 
addressed all three prongs of the framework and alleges that the Director failed to follow the USCIS 
Policy Manual. He contends that the Director's focus on the supporting articles and reports he 
submitted, and the exclusion of the business plan, made the denial arbitrary and capricious. He also 
argues that the Director did not analyze his petition using the preponderance of the evidence standard, 
and he instead contends that "USCIS is requiring that I prove my case to the extent that no reasonable 
individual could reasonably doubt that I am eligible for the classification sought." He argues that, 
when conducting a forward-looking analysis of the potential impact of the endeavor, he has shown the 
national importance of the endeavor. He highlights that the benefits of construction are not limited to 
the construction phase; rather, an office building stands to bring in additional revenue, jobs, and other 
benefits through the use phase of a building. 
In support of these contentions, the Petitioner has submitted evidence including, but not limited to: a 
business plan covering five years of operations; an expert opinion letter concluding that his endeavor 
is of national importance; letters of support from construction professionals and former clients; 
2 
documentation showing his educational and professional experience, and reports detailing the impact 
of the construction sector, with a particular focus on affordable housing. The Petitioner stresses that 
he is a highly skilled civil engineer with expertise in a broad range of projects. 
We agree that the Director 's decision did not clearly analyze the record and provide a full explanation 
of why the proposed endeavor was insufficient. However, after de novo review, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong of the Dhanasar framework requiring a proposed endeavor 
to be of national importance. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the 
national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" 
of the proposed endeavor. Id. at 889. An endeavor may have an impact rising to the level of national 
importance "because it has national or even global implications within a field, such as those resulting 
from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. An endeavor may also 
have other broader implications that make it nationally important, such as the "significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers" or other "substantial positive economic effects." Id. at 890. The Petitioner 
broadly asserts that his proposed endeavor demonstrates these types of impacts, but the record does 
not support this contention. 
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, the 
record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his 
clientele to impact the construction industry or otherwise impact economic initiatives more broadly at 
a level commensurate with national importance. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects. He has not shown that the company's future 
staffing levels, business activity, associated tax revenue, and financial initiatives stand to provide 
substantial economic benefits in Massachusetts or in the United States generally. 
Although the evidence reflects the Petitioner's intention to provide valuable services for the 
construction companies and project management initiatives he would consult for, his contentions 
regarding the broader impacts are insufficiently supported and attenuated from the actual endeavor. 
The listed benefits are not the direct consequence of the Petitioner's endeavor; rather, they rely on a 
series of assumptions that his consulting advice will result in consequential improvements to 
construction projects, which will in tum lead to the successful completion of construction projects and 
a positive and profitable occupancy and use phase for each building. The Petitioner has not provided 
us with sufficient evidence that his endeavor has the potential to spur construction, improve building 
usage, or otherwise be the catalyst for such broad change. 
The Petitioner also argues that his endeavor aligns with national initiatives to increase STEM talent in 
the United States; he contends that his extensive engineering experience would make bis work 
impactful and provide benefits in line with these initiatives. The Petitioner is correct that a proposed 
endeavor "may be based on reasonable projections, rather than any certainty of immediate results." 
However, the focus in determining national importance is on the proposed endeavor; a petitioner 's 
experience and efficacy, and the overall likelihood of success, is relevant to the second prong, whether 
the petitioner is well positioned to carry out the endeavor. Id. at 890. The fact that a proposed endeavor 
is carried out by a STEM professional does not necessarily make the endeavor nationally important. 
3 
Similarly, the Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that his consulting work 
will offer the type of "improved manufacturing processes" or similar outcomes in the United States 
that would be considered nationally important to the field. Id. at 889. While the Petitioner indicates 
that he intends to remain abreast of technological advancements and communicate these to clients, the 
Petitioner has not shown that he has or will develop such processes or otherwise advance the field. 
The Petitioner has also not demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence that the proposed endeavor 
would have a substantial economic benefit. While the business plan outlines the intent to hire various 
employees throughout the five-year period, and to reach several million dollars in revenue by year five, 
the support for these figures has not been provided. Additionally, the Petitioner does not explain how this 
benefit should be considered substantial compared to a construction industry that operates with billion­
or trillion-dollar revenues across the United States. 
Ultimately, the record does not demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting 
from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Although the Petitioner has highlighted the importance of good 
construction practices and the possible downstream benefits, he has not shown that the consulting 
services performed by the company would represent a significant share of the construction market or 
otherwise have a national impact. 2 
Because the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. We reserve opinion on whether the 
Petitioner could satisfy the third prong to qualify for a national interest waiver. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
429 U.S . 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that the proposed endeavor is of national importance. Because he has not 
met the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that he has not established he is 
eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 The Petitioner argues that affordable housing is a critical resource in the United States. However , the Petitioner's business 
plan or related filings do not address affordable housing or otherwise indicate how he would meaningfully impact the need 
for affordable housing in the United States. 
4