dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 05, 2024 In Re: 34890929 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office 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 amember of the professions holding an advanced degree and anational interest waiver 
of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(national interest waiver), concluding the Petitioner had not established a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed the appeal. 
The matter is now before us as a motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3).1 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 
1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
We hereby incorporate by reference our decision on appeal, in which we agreed with the Director that 
the Petitioner had not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor under prong one 
of the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N 
Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). We discuss the following background as relevant to our analysis of the 
motion to reconsider. According to the Petitioner 's statement, his proposed endeavor is to establish 
1 The Petitioner checked the box on the Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, indicating that he is filing a motion to 
reconsider. However, he titles the brief submitted with the filing, "Motion to Reopen and Reconsider." A motion to reopen 
must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The Petitioner does not allege 
new facts supported by documentary evidence and thereby does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. We 
therefore adjudicate this filing as a motion to reconsider as indicated on the Form 1-290B. 
and manage a construction management business in the state of Florida, whose services will have 
sustainability at its core and will help real estate developers of residential and commercial buildings 
and construction companies efficiently plan and develop high-profile projects and implement 
sustainable techniques. On motion, the Petitioner asserts that in our analysis of the national importance 
of his proposed endeavor we did not duly consider his industry reports and that his endeavor would 
address the urban heat island phenomenon, an area that has significant implications for public health, 
electricity consumption, and socio-economic factors. However, as we explained on appeal, 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." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). 
We therefore concluded that the industry reports and the Petitioner's discussion of using sustainable 
techniques to reduce the urban heat island phenomenon, which focused on the importance of the field, 
industry, or profession, therefore did not demonstrate the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. Further, the Petitioner did not explain or demonstrate how his proposed techniques of 
addressing the urban heat island phenomenon, would have national or global implications within the 
industry, beyond the impact on his future partner(s). See id. at 890 (explaining 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"). 
The Petitioner further asserts that we underestimated the importance of his partnership with established 
American companies, which evidences his potential for job creation and that he has recognition and 
support from respected entities in the sector. Further, he argues we did not adequately consider his 
business plan which contains projections for job creation and growth. He asserts his sustainable 
construction uses materials and labor from various parts of the United States creating a network of 
positive economic and environmental impacts. However, we explained that in Dhanasar we looked 
for "broader implications" of the proposed endeavor within a particular field 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. We then concluded that the Petitioner's business plan, which, for example, 
projected a growth to 17 full-time employees during the first five years of the business, and the letters 
of interest and letter of intent from a proposed partnering company proposing an initial investment of 
$50,000, did not sufficiently demonstrate a significant potential to employ U.S. worker or otherwise 
offer substantial positive economic effects as contemplated by Dhanasar. Although he asserts on 
motion that the financial projections and his partnership with U.S. companies are sufficient to show 
both, we note that the record does not include corroborating evidence to support his employment 
projections or demonstrate that such job projections or the initial investment from a partnering 
company indicate a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive impact. 
The Petitioner also claims that our decision excessively focused on comparisons with previous cases, 
such as Dhanasar, without considering the particularities of his case. We acknowledge referencing 
Dhanasar in our analysis because it provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
petitions. Id. at 889. However, as discussed above, we fully considered the particulars of Petitioner's 
arguments and evidence. 
The Petitioner has not established that we erred as a matter of law or policy in our prior decision or 
that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time. 
2 
Accordingly, he has not satisfied the requirements for a motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). Consequently, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3