dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 22, 2024 In Re: 28879895 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a civil construction project manager engineer, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that eligibility for 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 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. In addition, petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the 
job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if: 
• 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. 
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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to operate I I a Florida-based construction and remodeling 
company, providing services to residential and commercial property owners. She has almost two 
decades of experience in the area of civil engineering including in the areas of strategic planning, 
business management, technical leadership, integration of disciplines and project problem solving, and 
she has a master's degree in planning and environment. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analysis, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the 
specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be 
demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. The Director concluded and we agree that the Petitioner's endeavor has 
substantial merit. 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts USCIS abused its discretion in determining that the business plan did 
not provide sufficient documentation to support the assertions regarding the income and employment 
projections. She contends the record contains abundant information to establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact and not the importance of the industry of the profession in which the individual 
will work; instead, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 
See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889 
In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that 
"[ a ]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 
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 the work. Id. at 889. Here, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her business would largely influence the field and rise to the 
level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. While the Petitioner asserts in the business plan that the endeavor will ensure that the 
"clients' projects are profitable, with high quality, operational, and environmentally sustainable 
standards," the record does not show through supporting documentation how her endeavor sufficiently 
extends beyond her prospective clients or employees, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner relies on the same assertions 
previously put forth before the Director, but notably does not discuss the evidence in the record with 
specificity, nor does she explain how it supports her claims or otherwise overcomes the conclusions 
regarding the limited prospective impact of her endeavor. Unsupported assertions and speculation 
2 
have no evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish a filing party has satisfied their burden of 
proof See Matter ofMariscal-Hernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 666, 673 (BIA 2022). 
The Petitioner submitted letters from clients that discussed the impact of her work in the field and her 
handling of prior projects. One general contractor with whom she worked noted that the Petitioner is, 
"highly respected by her subordinates and skillfully managed the professionals involved with her 
projects," but this and the other letters do not show the broader impact of the Petitioner's work and 
instead discuss project limited to her specific clients, who employ her for their services. Moreover, 
the letters cover the Petitioner's prior work and accomplishments and relate more to the second prong 
rather than the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Id. at 890. 
While the Petitioner provided a business plan for the proposed company, she did not present any 
supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures to explain how she arrived at these 
numbers in the business plan. Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her business plan's 
claimed revenue and employment projections have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. The business plan forecasts sales 
from $972,000 in year 1 to $1,348,000 in year 5, but the Petitioner did not establish the significance 
of this data to show that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Similarly, even though 
the business plan claims the creation of 3 positions by year 5, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the 
relevance of these 3 positions and show that such future staffing levels would provide substantial 
economic benefits to the region or the U.S. economy more broadly. The Petitioner, for instance, did 
not establish that such employment figures would utilize a significant population of workers in the 
area or would substantially impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. 
The Petitioner's reliance on articles supporting a well-drafted business plan is misplaced because the 
Director did not assert the plan lacks a detailed strategy. The Director contends and we agree that the 
plan does not specify how the revenue and job creation will have a national impact. For all these 
reasons, the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective 
clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level 
of having national importance or that it would offer substantial positive economic effects. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not establish how the civil engineering company has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Again, 
the business plan discusses commercial and residential real estate development projects without 
showing the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's particular 
services or company. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis ofthe Petitioner's eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 2 
2 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 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