dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 15, 2024 In Re: 31260769 
Appeal of Nebraska 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 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the 
Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 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. 
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 l&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 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
• 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 concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. See 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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. 
According to the Petitioner's statement provided with the initial filing, he intends to "contribute to the 
American economy through the effective and efficient investment and development of real estate 
industrial and infrastructure projects" and his "goal is to protect American companies that invest or 
develop projects, maximizing profits through the creation or selection of tools, standardization of 
processes, efficient management of implementation and diagnosis, and a continuous improvement of 
good practices in project management." In support of his eligibility, the Petitioner also submitted 
recommendation letters, copies of industry articles and reports, and letters from companies expressing 
interest in working with the Petitioner. 
The Director determined, in part, that the Petitioner's initial filing did not demonstrate the proposed 
endeavor's national importance and issued a request for evidence and notice of intent to deny. In 
response, the Petitioner provided additional documentation, such as a business plan, an expert opinion 
letter, and additional industry articles and reports. He contended that through his company he will 
provide "project management consulting services concentrated on the construction and development 
of industrial, residential building, and infrastructure projects." The Petitioner stated that his proposed 
endeavor has national importance because it aims at "empowering organizations in the construction 
sector to successfully execute construction projects efficiently and profitably through the adoption of 
project management practices that enhance the organization's maturity levels", supports federal 
government infrastructure initiatives to deliver efficiency and cost reduction within construction 
projects, and will "help drive economic growth by ensuring the successful completion of projects 
within budget and on time." The Petitioner indicated that by establishing his company in Utah, he 
will also benefit local economies, especially in the economically distressed areas ofI 
and his project management consulting services will focus on the affordable housing construction 
segment. 
2 
I 
In denying the pet1t10n, the Director concluded that though his proposed endeavor of project 
management had substantial merit, the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of his endeavor rises to the level of national importance. The Director noted that 
while the submitted evidence emphasized the importance of project managers, it appeared that the 
benefit of the Petitioner's endeavor would primarily accrue to his future company and prospective 
clients. The denial indicated that the record did not establish the Petitioner's work has significant 
potential to provide benefits to the regional or national economy that would reach the level of 
substantial positive economic effects. Regarding the submitted business plan, the Director found that 
the record did not clarify how the Petitioner plans to pay salaries for employees and business expenses; 
the submitted letters indicating interest in working with the Petitioner's company did not contain 
evidence of financial support; and additional documentation, such as employment contracts and state 
filing records, was not provided. Therefore, the Petitioner did not meet prong one of Dhanasar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director did not properly analyze the record as a whole and 
imposed a novel criterion not mandated by the Dhanasar framework. He asserts, in part, that the 
previously submitted evidence, to include project management and construction industry articles and 
reports, demonstrates his proposed endeavor meets the national importance element of the first prong 
of Dhanasar. The Petitioner contends the record directly correlates to his "goal to revolutionize 
project management in key sectors, addressing national challenges and contributing significantly to 
the U.S. economy and infrastructure development." Concerning the requirement to demonstrate a 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects, 
the Petitioner argues that his plan to hire five workers in five years "is more than enough to meet the 
plain language of the criterion when coupled with the ample projection-based evidence provided in 
the record with respect to the likelihood of said employment of U.S. workers." The Petitioner indicates 
that his business plan demonstrates a commitment to contribute directly to the U.S. workforce, 
particularly in "areas designated as Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUB Zones)." 
Upon review, the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence 
to evaluate whether he had demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he meets the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. 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. Generally, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of a 
petitioner's work. We noted in Dhanasar that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed 
endeavor and 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. Although the Petitioner discusses 
the value and importance of project management, especially in the construction sector, and its impact 
on the U.S. economy, Dhanasar requires us to focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake," not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the 
individual will work. Id. at 889. 
Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his company's operations would provide substantial 
economic benefits to the region or nation at a level commensurate with national importance, nor did 
he demonstrate that his company's activities would substantially impact job creation and economic 
growth, either regionally or nationally. We note the Petitioner's assertion that his plan to hire five 
3 
workers in five years meets the requirement to impact job creation. However, as detailed by the 
Director, the record does not contain sufficient details and supporting evidence to demonstrate how 
his company will reach the stated economic impact objectives, including in the local HUB Zones; 
what funds have been committed to pay for potential workers and business expenses; and overall, how 
his proposed endeavor will substantially impact job creation and economic growth in the region or 
nation. For instance, while the business plan forecasts total operating expenses to reach over $1.5 
million and total sales to surpass $1. 7 million in the fifth year of operation, the record does not 
demonstrate sufficient funds invested in the company. Though the evidence includes the Petitioner's 
personal bank statement reflecting a balance of approximately $11,000 and a letter from a U.S. 
company indicating interest in working with the Petitioner, the record lacks documentation 
establishing investment funds have been secured on behalf of the prospective company. 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. Further 
analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would 
serve no meaningful purpose. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ( 1976) (stating that agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also 
Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal 
where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4