dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 1, 2024 In Re: 31283348 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a civil engineer with a focus on sustainable development, 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. 
§ 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. 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 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; 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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 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 "establish and 
manage a construction management business" in Florida. The services provided by the company "will 
have sustainability at its core" and he will "help real estate developers of residential and commercial 
buildings and construction companies efficiently plan and develop high-profile projects and 
implement sustainable techniques." The Petitioner also submitted a business plan, copies of industry 
articles, and letters of recommendation in support of his eligibility. 
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. In response, the Petitioner 
su
______ 
bmitted additional documentation, to include an updated business 
plan for his proposed company, 
letters from indicating interest in working with 
the Petitioner's company; and a letter of intent from indicating the company 
intends to invest $50,000 in ______ The Petitioner also provided financial and 
employment projections for his proposed company, additional recommendation letters, and an expert 
opinion letter. The Petitioner contended that his proposed endeavor of providing sustainable 
construction consulting services has national importance due to how his "solutions and unique 
approach" have a "wide application on multiple regions and providers", the "large amount of usability 
to [his] initiative nationwide", and the alignment of his endeavor with the U.S. government's 
objectives of improving infrastructure and growing the economy sustainably. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that though the proposed endeavor had substantial 
merit, the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate the Petitioner's work has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our 
nation. The Petitioner did not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from 
his proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated 
by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. The Director noted that while the submitted evidence emphasized the impact 
of civil engineers in the United States, the record demonstrated the potential prospective impact of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor is mainly his customers, and not beyond. Additionally, the industry 
2 
articles failed to demonstrate how the Petitioner's specific endeavor has national implications, 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director erred by incorrectly applying a preponderance of 
evidence standard that favored a "less likely" scenario rather than "more likely" when evaluating his 
eligibility. He asserts that the record demonstrates his proposed endeavor "to develop projects and 
consultancy in sustainable construction projects" and assist "entrepreneurs in contributing to the 
environment by constructing sustainable buildings and infrastructure, with a primary focus on 
reducing the urban heat island phenomenon" meets the national importance element of Dhanasar's 
first prong. The Petitioner also argues that the Director did not consider the letters of interest from 
I land erred by finding that the proposed partnership with I II lwould not have a substantial economic impact in the United States. 
With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that they meet each 
eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I& N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what they claim is "more likely 
than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the 
preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, 
probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 
(Comm'r 1989). Here, the Director thoroughly 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. The Petitioner 
submitted articles addressing the importance of sustainable construction and its impact on the U.S. 
economy, public health, and environment, and provided recommendation letters from former 
colleagues, who attested to the quality of his work. However, the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and 
abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor 
he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 
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 sustainable construction practices, to include the "large-scale production and installation of' 
permeable pavements and efforts to reduce the urban heat island phenomenon, 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. 
Further, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his company's operations would provide substantial 
economic benefits to Florida or the region or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate 
3 
with national importance, nor did he demonstrate that his company's activities would substantially 
impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. For example, the 
Petitioner's business plan projects that his company will have 17 full-time employees during the first 
five years. In addition, the letters of interest from and a letter of 
intent for a proposed partnership with _______ with an initial investment of $50,000 are 
not sufficient to show significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial 
positive economic effects. 
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 "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate 
decision); see also Matter of L-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