dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 19, 2024 In Re: 29340013 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 
classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, 
when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualifies for the EB-2 classification, the record did not establish that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement is 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the EB-2 classification, the petitioner must then establish 
eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither 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 USCIS may, as a matter of 
discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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). 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based upon 
obtaining the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree in economics and more than five years of 
progressive experience in his specialty. 2 The Director also found that the Petitioner established the 
substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor, that he is well-positioned to 
advance it, or that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. On 
appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief in which he asserts that he has established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver. 
As to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, he states: 
My proposed endeavor is to build on my extensive experience with innovative and 
affordable designs for housing solutions for people [without] decent home[s] and to 
preserve life from catastrophes with secure living designs in order to minimize the 
homeless population in [the United States] and prevent the human losses when the 
situation or any event arrives. 
The Petitioner states that he has many years of experience in the construction industry, with a particular 
interest in using innovative and alternative construction methods to reduce costs and environmental 
impacts. For example, the Petitioner describes using recycled cargo containers as an alternative 
housing option for low-income and homeless individuals or for temporary housing after natural 
disasters. The Petitioner states that he will circulate his work through the field with a Y ouTube 
channel, presentations, fairs, and publications, and has he has founded a company to begin to design 
and build alternative housing. 
In determining that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, 
the Director specifically found that the evidence relating occupational shortages in the field did not, 
by itself, demonstrate the potential impact of the proposed endeavor. The Director also found that the 
evidence of the Petitioner's experience and expertise, while potentially useful to a prospective 
customer or employer, similarly did not sufficiently demonstrate the potential impact of the endeavor. 
Finally, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the potential economic benefits 
of the proposed endeavor, noting that the Petitioner did not submit a detailed business plan or other 
sufficient evidence to illustrate the number of individuals that the Petitioner intends to hire, train, and 
support or the potential revenue of the endeavor. Overall, the Director concluded that the evidence 
did not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently affect or advance the field at a 
level commensurate with national importance, nor that it has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects. 
2 The Petitioner submitted evidence demonstrating that after he obtained his bachelor's degree, he worked as a general 
manager in a construction business. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner first contends that the Director erred by finding the lack of a business plan 
to be relevant to the national importance analysis, stating that a "model or plan for future activities" 
should instead be considered under the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner 
claims that this amounts to imposing "a novel or unique requirement" to the first Dhanasar prong that 
is outside what our decision in Matter ofDhanasar requires and is therefore an abuse of discretion. 
We agree that a petitioner's model or plan for future activities is relevant to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the [ noncitizen ]" and 
whether they are well-positioned to advance it. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. But we 
disagree that the Director abused their discretion by considering the lack of a business plan as part of 
the first prong analysis. The Director's decision did not state or imply that a detailed business plan is 
required for a finding of national importance. Rather, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did 
not submit "a detailed business plan, sufficient information, or evidence to illustrate the number of 
individuals (if any) he plans to hire, train and support, or the amount of revenue his endeavor will 
generate," as part of the finding that the Petitioner had not sufficiently established the potential 
economic benefits of the proposed endeavor. The Director's consideration of whether the record 
demonstrates that the proposed endeavor may create jobs or generate revenue is appropriate in the 
national importance analysis and in line with our decision in Matter ofDhanasar. See id. at 889. We 
conclude, therefore, that the Director did not impose a novel requirement that is not present in our 
precedent decision. 
The Petitioner next asserts that the Director abused discretion by failing to contemplate or discuss all 
of the evidence submitted. The Petitioner asserts that, contrary to the Director's conclusions, he has 
submitted objective, documentary evidence to establish the proposed endeavor's national importance 
and that the Director did not examine the entirety of the record. The Petitioner states that the failure 
to consider all the relevant evidence submitted has been found to be an abuse of discretion and cites 
to Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1223 (E.D. Mi. 1994). While we agree that an adjudicator 
should consider the relevant evidence in the record,3 we also note that U.S. district court decisions, 
such as the one the Petitioner cites, are not binding precedential authority. The reasoning underlying 
a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us; however, the 
analysis does not have to be followed as a matter oflaw. See Matter ofK-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719 
(BIA 1993). More importantly, however, the Petitioner does not sufficiently support the claim that 
there was relevant evidence that the Director did not consider. 
In support this claim, the Petitioner states the petition included "evidence from reputable industry and 
U.S. government sources," such as information about the 1968 Civil Rights Acts, a 2021 memorandum 
from the U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development regarding the federal government's role 
in promoting fair housing, and the announcement by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development to allocate nearly $5 billion to help communities create affordable housing. The 
Petitioner claims that the proposed endeavor is therefore in line with the agency's stated priorities. 
The Petitioner also cites to the evidence in the record from the National Low Income Housing 
Coalition regarding the national lack of affordable housing, a report on the state of the nation's housing 
from Harvard University, and articles from Insider, the Guardian, and the Joint Center for Housing 
3 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
3 
Studies about affordable housing. The Petitioner claims that this evidence establishes the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor but was not considered by the Director. 
But the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted reports and articles that discuss the 
housing shortage in the United States, the related problems that stem from that shortage, the barriers 
to building affordable housing, and the potential solutions to those problems. The Director also 
discussed the Petitioner's claim that his endeavor, which aims to combat the housing crisis, aligns with 
social and environmental priorities in the United States. While the Director may not have specifically 
named each piece of evidence in the record, this is not indicative of a failure to consider the evidence. 
See Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1142-43 (5th Cir. 1984) ("[The Board oflmmigration Appeals] 
has no duty to write an exegesis on every contention."). See also Ren v. USCIS, 60 F.4th 89, 97 (4th 
Cir. 2023) ("[S]o long as [USCIS] has given reasoned consideration to the petition, and made adequate 
findings, we will not require that it address specifically each claim the petitioner made or each piece 
of evidence the petitioner presented." ( cleaned up)); Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 
(9th Cir. 2000) (joining the Seventh and the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals in presuming that the 
Board reviewed all of the evidence of record). Therefore, we do not find sufficient support for the 
Petitioner's claim that the Director failed to consider all of the evidence in the record. 
Moreover, upon de novo review of the record, we agree with the Director that the articles, reports, and 
evidence of government agency priorities submitted by the Petitioner do not establish the endeavor's 
national importance. These articles provide background information about homelessness and housing 
shortages in the United States and some of the societal issues that stem from a lack of affordable 
housing. However, this evidence relates only to the housing and construction sector in general and 
not the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. We agree with the Director that in determining 
whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of 
the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national 
importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. These articles and reports do not discuss the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor, do not help demonstrate the potential prospective impact of the endeavor 
on the problem of housing affordability and homelessness, and do not otherwise demonstrate the 
national importance of the endeavor. 
Finally, the Petitioner makes the broad claim that the record contains "ample evidence in the form of 
both testimonial and objective documentary evidence" to establish the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor based upon its economic and social welfare benefits. But the Petitioner does not 
describe the specific evidence that demonstrates these benefits. The objective documentary evidence 
in the record, such as the articles and reports discussed above, do not reference the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor and do not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the endeavor. As 
to testimonial evidence, the record contains several recommendation and support letters. For example, 
the Petitioner submitted a recommendation letter from a professional associate who speaks highly of 
the Petitioner's knowledge and professionalism and states the opinion that the Petitioner's project will 
be a success. The record also contains support letters, such as a letter from a plant manager expressing 
interest in working with the Petitioner to repair and restore structures at the company's plant. While 
these letters may be helpful in showing that the Petitioner is respected by his colleagues, they do not 
sufficiently analyze the proposed endeavor or offer evidence of its potential impact. Contrary to the 
4 
Petitioner's broad claim otherwise, we conclude that the record does not contain sufficient evidence 
to establish that the effects of his proposed endeavor may rise to the level of national importance. 
Because the documentation in the record does not demonstrate 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 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 I&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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the national importance requirement of the first prong of Dhanasar. We 
therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5