dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 26, 2024 In Re: 33420090 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a construction entrepreneur, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree or of exceptional ability, pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the 
job offer requirement that is attached to this employment based second preference (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. See 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Petitioner warranted a national interest waiver of the labor certification and job offer 
requirements for EB-2 classification. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before 
us on motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance 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. 
In our prior decision, incorporated here by reference, we concluded that the Petitioner had not 
established his eligibility for a national interest waiver based on the framework set out in Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). Specifically, we determined that the Petitioner had 
not established that his endeavor, a comprehensive home building service, stood to sufficiently extend 
beyond his employees and clients such that its impact would be at a level commensurate with national 
importance. See id. (providing in relevant part that, to establish eligibility for a national interest 
waiver, the petitioner must establish that their specific proposed endeavor bas national importance). 
On motion, the Petitioner argues that we used an improper standard of proof beyond a preponderance 
of the evidence when evaluating the economic impact of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner 
restates that the economic impacts of his construction and real estate company rise to the level of 
national importance because he is increasing the availability of affordable housing, an issue of national 
importance. However, the fact that a petitioner is operating in an industry or sector that is the subject 
of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of a specific 
endeavor. The Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential prospective impact of his specific 
endeavor in that area of national importance, and he has not met that burden. 
The Petitioner's business plan highlights that the U.S. home construction and remodeling industry was 
projected to generate $124 billion in 2023. The Petitioner highlights that the employment of 12 
individuals and revenue of $27 million over five years is a significant investment in the local economy. 
However, even if the Petitioner meets the revenue, staffing, and wage projections of his proposed 
endeavor, he has not established that it will have an economic impact that rises to the level of national 
importance. The Petitioner further states that he has filed for a patent to advance the second part of 
his proposed endeavor, the creation of two insulated cement block production facilities. While the 
Petitioner mentions the submission of the patent on motion, he has not provided further information 
regarding the project's viability or potential impact on the construction industry. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not met his burden of proof in establishing that this part of his proposed endeavor would 
rise to the level of national importance on motion. 
The Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor will have the potential to employ a significant 
number of U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects. See id. ("An 
endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, ... may well be understood to have 
national importance."). The Petitioner has not established, through sufficient probative evidence, that 
his endeavor would have broader implications in his field that would resonate on a national level. See 
id. ( stating that national importance is evaluated through consideration of "potential prospective 
impact" and "broader implications"). We therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not establish that 
his proposed endeavor has national importance such that he is eligible for a national interest waiver 
under Dhanasar. 1 
The Petitioner's unsupported assertion that we used an incorrect standard of proof is insufficient to 
establish eligibility for the requested classification. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not 
established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the 
time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 In light of this conclusion, we declined to reach and reserved the Petitioner's remaining arguments concerning eligibility 
under Dhanasar. 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 alternative issues on appeal where the applicant did not othe1wise meet their burden 
of proof). 
2