dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Construction Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 13, 2024 In Re: 30185341 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner is construction manager who seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, 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 determined that despite qualifying for the underlying EB-2 
visa classification as an individual holding an advanced degree 1 and demonstrating that the proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit and that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor, the 
Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. Applying the three-prong analytical framework set forth in Matter 
ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not 
establish that his endeavor has national importance or that on balance, waiving the job offer 
requirement would benefit the United States. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 
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 ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that his 
specific proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance 
requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Because the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding the third Dhanasar prong. 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 ofL-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). 
1 The record contains and degree certificate and corresponding transcript showing that the Petitioner completed required 
coursework and was awarded a bachelor's degree in civil engineering in January 2016 and that he subsequently attained 
at least five years of progressive experience in his specialty as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Further, we adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the national importance 
of the Petitioner's endeavor. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also 
Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming 
the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted 
the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that 
appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized 
consideration" to the case). 
In addressing the issue of national importance within the context of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
to own a construction company, the Director addressed industry articles that the Petitioner submitted, 
noting that the Petitioner did not explain how his endeavor would address the labor shortages 
highlighted in the articles. The Director also discussed the Petitioner's business plan and determined 
that the plan's staffing and wage projections, which include hiring four employees and paying 
approximately $400,000 in wages by the fifth year of operation, do not demonstrate the endeavor's 
significant potential for broad economic impact, such as employing or offering economic benefits in 
an economically depressed area. The Director concluded that the endeavor's impact would be limited 
to the company's clients and would not broadly impact the field of construction and home 
improvement, broadly enhance societal, or offer substantial positive economic benefits as 
contemplated in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his endeavor "aligns perfectly with the urgent national need 
for affordable housing and sustainable growth" and claims that he is "well-equipped to employ green 
building materials and techniques." However, the Petitioner does not provide evidence to demonstrate 
that the impact to affordable housing, sustainable growth, or the environment would be so significant 
as to result in substantial positive effects as contemplated in Matter of Dhanasar. Likewise, the 
Petitioner does not offer evidence to show how his specific endeavor would mitigate the U.S. housing 
shortage or impact public health at a level that is commensurate with having national importance. The 
Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). And while the Petitioner lists multiple other benefits 
that he claims will be the "indirect economic impact" from his endeavor, he does not provide specific 
plans, projections, or calculations in support of his broad claims. Nor does he otherwise provide an 
evidentiary basis to demonstrate that his work will, for example, prompt job creation and growth of 
small businesses. While any business activity has the potential to positively impact the economy, the 
record does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's construction company could generate such 
significant economic activity that it would rise to the level of "substantial positive economic effects." 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining 
Dhanasar prong. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2