dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 1, 2023 In Re: 27893184 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability. See 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 that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See 
section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). 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. The Director did not determine whether 
the Petitioner qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptional ability or, in the alternative, 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. However, the Director concluded that 
the Petitioner 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. 
§ I03.3. 
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 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 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. 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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance; (2) that the 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director did not address whether the Petitioner qualifies for second-preference 
classification as either an individual of exceptional ability or as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. See section 203(b )(2) of the Act. However, because we nevertheless find that 
the record does not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor 
certification, would be in the national interest, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner 
satisfies second-preference eligibility criteria. See id.; see also 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"); 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). 
Initially, the Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan to "manag[e] and operat[e] my own company 
... operating in the housing and construction sector to develop design & remodeling projects." The 
Petitioner elaborated that rs compry "will provide low-cost residential remodeling services ... in 
suburban districts of the metropolitan area." The Petitioner farther asserted, "by the 
company's fifth year, I also intend to hire a total of 122 American employees - and I will invest a total 
of USD $2,721,766 over 5 years, including my own $100,000 of start up ignition capital." The 
Petitioner also submitted an undated business plan for his residential remodeling services company. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner reiterated that the proposed 
endeavor entails a plan "to develop a construction company ... in the state of Florida." The Petitioner 
also reiterated that his company "will operate in the house construction sector to develop interior 
design and remodeling projects with affordable options" and that the company would "generat[ e] 
about one hundred twenty-two (122) (foll-time and part-time) employees." The Petitioner farther 
stated that he expects "total payment of wages of approximately 16,397,773 million dollars [sic] in 
the first five (5) years." We note, however, that total wages of $16,397,773 for 122 workers, divided 
by five years, is an average annual wage of $26,881.59 per worker. The Petitioner also resubmitted a 
copy of the undated business plan for his residential remodeling services company in response to the 
Director's RFE. 
The Director concluded that the record did not "demonstrate that [the Petitioner's] business stands to 
impact the regional or national population at a level consistent with having national importance." The 
Director noted that the record did not establish that "the rate of pay [the Petitioner] intends to pay his 
current or prospective employees would have 'substantial positive economic effects' such as revenue 
2 
or job creation." The Director also concluded that the record did not establish that the Petitioner's 
"particular work would have broader implications for the construction field." The Director 
acknowledged that the Petitioner "highlights that there is an occupational shortage in the United 
States" but the Director also observed that "such a shortage does not, by itself, establish that [the 
Petitioner's] work stands to impact the broader field or otherwise have implications rising to the level 
of national importance." Ultimately, the Director concluded that "the [P]etitioner has not established 
that the proposed endeavor is of national importance," as required by the first Dhanasar prong. The 
Director also concluded that the record did not establish that the proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit, also required by the first Dhanasar prong, and that the record did not satisfy the second and 
third Dhanasar prongs. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates his education and prior work experience and he asserts that 
generalized industry reports and articles in the record "demonstrate the national importance of the 
[Petitioner's] proposed endeavor; as well as the steep shortage in the U.S. of professionals with [the 
Petitioner's] profile in the field." The Petitioner also asserts that the "proposed endeavor is national 
in scope, as his professional activities relate to a matter of national importance and impact, particularly 
because they generate substantial ripple effects upon key commercial and business activities on behalf 
of the United States-namely, serving the business management and functions of U.S. companies." 
In determining 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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first 
prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that have broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
First, the Petitioner's focus on appeal on his education and prior work experience with regard to the 
first Dhanasar prong is misplaced. Although an individual's education and prior work experience is 
relevant to the second Dhanasar prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a 
proposed endeavor-they are irrelevant to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a particular, 
prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-91. 
Next, the Petitioner's focus on appeal on generalized industry reports and articles in the record is 
misplaced. As noted above, in determining 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 id. at 889. None of the generalized industry reports and articles in the record specifically discuss 
the Petitioner, the proposed endeavor, and how the particular proposed endeavor may have "national 
or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances" or broader implications, such as "significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. Therefore, the generalized industry reports and articles 
are irrelevant to determining whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance. See id. 
3 
Next, the Petitioner's own statements in the record do not support his assertion on appeal that he will 
"serv[e] the business management and functions of U.S. companies" and, thus, "generate substantial 
ripple effects upon key commercial and business activities on behalf of the United States." As 
discussed above, the Petitioner described the proposed endeavor as a plan to "manag[ e] and operat[ e] 
my own company ... operating in the housing and construction sector to develop design & remodeling 
projects [and] provide low-cost residential remodeling services ... in suburban districts ofthel I 
metropolitan area." Thus, the proposed endeavor would serve the business management functions of 
one U.S. company-the Petitioner's own company-not that of multiple "U.S. companies" as asserted 
on appeal. Moreover, the record does not reconcile how the Petitioner would generate "ripple effects 
upon key commercial and business activities" by providing "residential remodeling services" to his 
residential clients, other than the commercial and business activities of the Petitioner's own business 
and its suppliers of materials and equipment-if any ( emphasis added). Although the record 
establishes that the proposed endeavor will benefit the Petitioner's own company and its residential 
clients, the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor will have "national or even global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances" or broader implications, such as "substantial positive economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
We note that the Petitioner's business plan, as discussed above, proposes to employ 122 workers 
within the first five years of operation. The record farther indicates that the Petitioner's proposed 
employees would work "in suburban districts of thel !metropolitan area." However, the record 
does not establish the significance of employing 122 workers in the suburban districts of thd I 
metropolitan area, particularly in the residential construction and remodeling industry, in order to 
determine whether such employment would amount to broader implications, such as "significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area," or otherwise establish national importance. Id. Furthermore, as 
discussed above, we acknowledge that the Petitioner stated he expects "total payment of wages of 
approximately 16,397,773 million dollars [sic] in the first five (5) years." However, as noted above, 
total wages of $16,397,773 for 122 workers, divided by five years, is an average annual wage of 
$26,88(59 per (orker. The record does not establish how paying 122 workers "in suburban districts 
of the metropolitan area" an average annual wage of $26,881.59 per worker would have 
"substantial positive economic effects." See id. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We 
reserve our opinion regarding whether the record establishes that the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, also required by the first Dhanasar prong, and whether the record satisfies the second 
or third Dhanasar prong. See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 526 n.7. As noted above, we also reserve our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the 
Petitioner is eligible for second-preference classification. See id. 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5