dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electric Vehicle Infrastructure

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 13, 2025 In Re: 35666723 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See 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 EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l l 53(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualified for a national interest waiver. 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 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. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Id. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver 
if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional. 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 a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner initially stated that he intended to operate a company that would expand the number of 
charging stations for electric vehicles, or EVs, in the United States. He provided the following 
summary of his proposed endeavor in a business plan: 
The company will develop and provide innovative Refueling EV-charging solutions 
and services in the United States in order to lead the charge in advancing sustainable 
transportation. 
The company [ will] offer smart EV charging controller software integration, EV 
charging services through its own stations, expert EV charger installation, 
subscription[ s] for updates, tailored customization options, [ and] reliable maintenance. 
The company [will] make advanced Smart EV charging controllers that are at the 
forefront of technological innovation. These controllers are designed to optimize the 
charging experience for electric vehicle owners while ensuring efficiency and safety. 
Through continuous innovation, cutting-edge technology, and a pass10n for 
sustainability, the company [will] strive to empower individuals, businesses, and 
communities with he tools they need to embrace electric mobility. 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the 
Director concluded the record did not establish that the endeavor is of national importance. On appeal, 
the Petitioner reiterates his explanation of the national importance of his endeavor. Upon review, for 
the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the 
national importance of his endeavor in order to establish his eligibility under the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
2 
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. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]n undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. We also 
stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be 
understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. Further, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting 
the "potential prospective impact" of his work. Id. at 889. 
To demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner submitted letters of 
recommendation discussing expressing confidence in his knowledge and ability. These letters, 
however, do not offer insight into a specific endeavor that the Petitioner intends to undertake. We 
note that evidence of the Petitioner's experience and education generally relates not to the national 
importance of an endeavor, as discussed in the first prong of Matter ofDhanasar, but to the second, 2 
which evaluates whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance an endeavor. As such, the letters 
do not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also provided reports and articles discussing federal and state initiatives concerning the 
expansion of electric vehicle infrastructure, vehicle emissions, climate change; renewable energy and 
sustainability, and job creation in the United States. While this documentation relates to the area in 
which the Petitioner intends to work, it does not speak to how the Petitioner's individual endeavor to 
build or modify electric vehicle charging stations would have a potential prospective impact of 
national importance. For example, although the Petitioner asserts that the U.S. Department of Energy 
estimates that 28 million charging stations will be required to adequately service electric vehicles 
across the country by 2030, he states that his company will create 600 stations by that same year; he 
does not provide an explanation of how an expansion of hundreds of charging stations would impact 
a purported need in the tens of millions. And beyond his general intention to expand charging 
infrastructure in the United States, the Petitioner has not described what his specific endeavor entails 
or how he would enact it. His response to a request for evidence (RFE) provides the following: 
The company offers smart electric vehicle charging controller software integration, 
electric vehicle charging services through proprietary stations, professional electric 
vehicle charger installation, upgrade subscriptions, customization options and reliable 
service. 
The company manufactures advanced Smart EV charging controllers that are at the 
forefront of technological innovation. These controllers are designed to optimize the 
charging process for electric vehicle owners while ensuring efficiency and safety. 
2 Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, determinations 
concerning the second and third prongs are unnecessary to the ultimate decision; therefore, they will be reserved in this 
decision. 
3 
The Petitioner, however, did not specifically describe in either his statement or his business plan how 
he would undertake an endeavor of a scale that would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. The record does not contain documentation of 
software developed by the Petitioner or other evidence of technology that the Petitioner intends to 
deploy. While the business plan offers an overview of the services the Petitioner intends to provide, 
the asserted national importance of his proposed endeavor relies on documentation discussing the 
importance of addressing climate change through the expanded use of electric vehicles; the Petitioner 
has not explained how his individual company would have a national-level impact by providing 
"innovative electric vehicle charging solutions and services in the United State to lead the movement 
to promote clean transportation," nor does he elaborate on what innovations he has developed that his 
company would provide. 
In addition, the Petitioner generally speculates that his company's services would result in job creation 
in various sectors in the United States, but he has not provided independent evidence or otherwise 
explained how his company would have a prospective national impact on a specific field. For example, 
the business plan states that the Petitioner anticipates hiring 21 individuals by his company's fifth year 
of operation, resulting in "[m]ore than USD 15.2 million in revenue in 2025-2030 [and] at least USD 
6.2 million a year starting from 2030." The business plan also estimates that the Petitioner will pay 
approximately $3 million in taxes within its first five years of operation. The Petitioner has not, 
however, provided a sufficient basis for these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated by 
probative evidence sufficient to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the company will have 
a substantial positive economic effect within any field. A petitioner must support assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. He has not 
done so here. 
We note that the Petitioner submitted material relating to opportunities in the fields of science, 
technology, engineering, and math, or STEM, indicating that his endeavor's relationship to a STEM 
field evinces its national importance. USCIS Policy Manual guidance provides that an endeavor 
rooted in STEM has national importance when the evidence sufficiently demonstrates that it would 
help the United States to remain ahead of strategic competitors or current and potential adversaries. 
We may also determine that an endeavor in a STEM field has national importance when it relates to a 
field where appropriate activity and investment may contribute to the United States achieving or 
maintaining technology leadership or peer status among allies and partners. Here, the Petitioner has 
not explained how his proposed endeavor would position the United States ahead of other nations or 
achieve or retain technology leadership or peer status with other countries, nor has he specified what 
technology he has developed that would potentially be advantageous for the United States. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the nation. Specifically, he 
has not shown that his business stands to provide substantial economic benefits to any particular 
locality or to the United States overall. While the business plan broadly describes a company that 
would contribute to the expansion of EV charging infrastructure with benefits to the U.S. economy 
and the environment, these asserted national impacts are not sufficiently supported by objective 
evidence related to a specific proposed endeavor. Further, it is not clear how a business of the size 
and scope described in the business plan would significantly impact a certain region in which his 
employees or clients are located. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to show that he 
4 
would employ a significant population of workers in a particular region, nor has he shown that his 
proposed endeavor would offer substantial economic benefits through employment levels, business 
activity, or tax revenue. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the prospective benefits to 
the regional or national economy resulting from his endeavor would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility 
under the Dhanasar framework. 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 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). 3 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor has national importance. As the 
Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not 
established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 We will also reserve the issue of the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not submit a required Form ETA 
9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, or Form ETA 750B, Application for Alien Employment 
Certification, in response to the RFE. 
5