dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 15, 2024 In Re: 30354422 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chief executive officer (CEO) and an entrepreneur, 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 Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that 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. 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 establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Because 
this classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate 
showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 
thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner demonstrates 
that (1) the noncitizen 's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that on balance it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, in light of the nature of the 
noncitizen's qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen 
to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that 
other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's 
contributions; and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent 
to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, 
indicate that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job 
offer and thus of a labor certification. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a CEO and an entrepreneur. The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner qualified 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 of a labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer is warranted. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. The Director 
determined, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor's national 
importance, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erroneously denied the petition. The Petitioner 
further contends that the Director failed to "objectively evaluate" the evidence using the proper 
standard and instead imposed a novel standard. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence 
individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
The record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to operate his company, _____ 
which provides construction-related services. Through this endeavor, the Petitioner seeks to 
offer construction planning, engineering, supply assessment, logistics, and building assembly 
outsourcing services, with the company headquartered in Florida. 
As previously noted, the first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor that the noncitizen 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. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director acknowledged and discussed the Petitioner's 
submission of evidentiary documents including a business plan, resume, industry reports and articles. 
The Director's decision also considered the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as outlined in the business 
plan. The Director nonetheless determined that the submitted evidence was insufficient to demonstrate 
the proposed endeavor's broader implications and significant potential to employ U.S. workers. 
Furthermore, the Director found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm 
whether his proposed endeavor would broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic 
enrichment, would lead to the employment of a significant population of workers in an economically 
depressed area, or that the Petitioner would pursue his endeavor in economically depressed area 
despite claiming that the company will operate in a HUBzone. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his 
proposed endeavor is of national importance. The Petitioner highlights the evidence he submitted in 
support of his petition and in response to the Director's request for evidence including resume, 
business plan, professional experience, letters of recommendation, and industry reports and articles to 
underscore the sufficiency of the submitted evidence and maintains that he submitted evidence to 
demonstrate the proposed endeavor's 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 Petitioner's work. While 
the Petitioner claims that he will create jobs and generate tax revenue through his company and that 
by year five his company will offer 25 full-time jobs and gamer 10.6 million dollars total revenue, the 
Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections, or adequately explain how 
these staffing targes and revenue forecasts will be realized. The Petitioner also argues that his proposed 
endeavor will "substantially enhance the U.S. construction industry and the national economy." The 
Petitioner, however, has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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 include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work as 
an entrepreneur and CEO of his construction company offers broader implications in his field, 
3 
enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive economic effects for the country that 
rise to the level of national importance. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for the United States. For example, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's claimed intention to 
establish his proposed endeavor within a Small Business Administration (SBA) designated HUBZone. 
Since the Petitioner has not adequately established what parameters the SBA considers when it 
establishes HUBZones, we cannot evaluate whether these SBA-identified underutilized business 
zones are akin to the types of economically depressed areas within which creating employment could 
be a potential positive economic effect.2 More importantly, while the Petitioner asserts that his 
company will offer 25 direct and 58 indirect jobs by year five, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
his undertaking will have implications beyond his employees and customers. Without sufficient 
information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to 
his future work, the record does not indicate that the benefits to the regional or national economy 
resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner highlights his extensive professional experience in the construction service industry, 
asserting that his track record demonstrates how his proposed endeavor will bring significant 
innovations and improvements to the United States. The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor 
itself, not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must establish that his specific endeavor has national 
importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. Moreover, although an individual's experience, 
qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the 
first Dhanasar prong. The Petitioner's claimed extensive experiences are material to Dhanasar 's 
second prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they 
are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes the importance of the construction industry and claims that his 
endeavor impacts the national economy. The Petitioner also points out the shortage of engineering 
professionals. As previously mentioned, in determining national importance, the relevant question is 
not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work. Instead, we focus 
on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Although 
the Petitioner states his endeavor is of national importance, he has not, for example, sufficiently 
explained how he will positively impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move 
2 The HUBZone program's goal is to promote business growth in underutilized business zones by awarding 3% of federal 
contract dollars to companies that are HUBZone-certified. Joining the HUBZone program makes a business eligible to 
compete for certain federal contracts in the "set-aside" category. There are several required qualifications to participate in 
the program, but the most dispositive requirement for purposes of our analysis is that the business seeking to participate in 
the HUBZone program must be at least 51 % owned by U.S. citizens, a community development corporation, an agricultural 
cooperative, an Alaska Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. While it is unknown and 
the record is silent as to whether any federal programs exist in the "set-aside" category for endeavors like the one the 
Petitioner proposes, it appears as though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be wholly owned and controlled by the 
Petitioner and that the Petitioner is not a U.S. citizen, a community development corporation, an agricultural cooperative, 
an Alaska Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. We therefore question whether the 
Petitioner would even be eligible to participate in the HUBZone program. 
4 
the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. It is also important to 
note that the shortage of engineering professionals does not render the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are 
directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the evidence he submitted in support of his 
petition, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently 
extend its benefits beyond his customers and the companies he elects to work with to enhance societal 
welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor 
has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such 
claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. 
See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and also hereby reserve the appellate arguments 
regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5