dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 26, 2024 In Re: 29344084 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an electrical engineer, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business. 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, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, he 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. § 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 l&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. 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 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 
thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner demonstrates 
that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, in light of the nature of the 
noncitizen's qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen 
to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that 
other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's 
contributions; and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent 
to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, 
indicate 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks to own and operate a solar energy engineering business in Florida. The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
Accordingly, 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 of a labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
The Petitioner asserts that his business aims to address challenges faced when developing and adapting 
electrical infrastructure, and that it would substantially transform the U.S. energy sector. He claims 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
that by fostering education, it will produce new professionals and increase qualified professionals' 
employability. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) requesting, among other things, further evidence of 
how the proposed endeavor would be of national importance. In response, the Petitioner provided 
additional documents including an expert opinion letter, letter of intent to invest, business plan, and 
industry reports. The Director found that while the Petitioner's endeavor had substantial merit, the 
record did not establish it was of national importance. In the decision denying the petition, the Director 
also concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that he is well positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor and on balance that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the 
requirement of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates the same arguments and resubmits previously submitted documents 
he argues demonstrate his eligibility for the national interest waiver and underscore the sufficiency of 
the submitted evidence. For example, the Petitioner contends his company will offer engineering 
services that support the installation and maintenance of solar energy equipment. The Petitioner 
further professes that his company will employ 10 employees and produce a net loss of $220,617.45 
in year one, but gamer a net profit of $403,862.17 by year five. 
The Petitioner maintains that his proposed endeavor has national importance because solar energy 
carries both national and global implications. He additionally affirms that the installation, repair, and 
maintenance of solar energy services that he provides are of national importance and meet the national 
interest waiver criteria. The letters of support for the Petitioner discuss the Petitioner's experience 
~rformance as an electrical engineer. The investment letter of intent outlines I 
L__J interest in investing in the Petitioner's company. 
We reviewed the entirety of the record and have considered the Petitioner's eligibility for the national 
interest waiver. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider 
its potential prospective impact. Further, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 
industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In 
Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that 
"[ a ]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. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. While 
the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to own and operate a solar energy engineering business, 
the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 
that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because 
they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. 
3 
I 
Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the evidence he submitted on appeal, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
his employees and his company's customers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative 
of national importance. 
The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself, not the petitioner. Id. To satisfy it, the 
Petitioner must establish that his specific endeavor has national importance. He has not done so. The 
Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States. 
Specifically, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his company's future staffing levels and business 
activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States. While the 
Petitioner claims that his company plans to hire 10 employees, generate direct and indirect jobs, and has 
the potential to employ U.S. workers and will bring substantial positive economic effect, particularly in 
economically depressed areas, he has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional 
or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, although the Petitioner asserts 
that his endeavor stands to create substantial benefits to the U.S. economy, he has not offered sufficient 
evidence that the area where his company plans to operate in Florida will be an area that is economically 
depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers in that area, or that his endeavor 
would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, 
tax revenue, or business activity. 
We do not dispute the importance of the solar energy engineering field. But the field's importance 
overall is not sufficient to establish the national importance of the endeavor proposed here. As 
previously mentioned, when 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. at 889. Although the 
Petitioner stated that he is willing to use his knowledge and experience to promote the national interest 
by providing guidance and advice, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how he will positively 
impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move the U.S. economy on a broad 
scale rising to the level of national importance. 
In the business plan, the Petitioner discusses information obtained from industry and government 
reports on the U.S. solar energy market, highlighting the potential growth his company aims to bring 
to Florida. The Petitioner also mentions that his company will provide complimentary courses in the 
solar energy field for a duration of five years, aiming to train and qualify 800 students for the job 
market. He details the courses to be offered through his platform, including quarterly training sessions 
in solar energy installation and maintenance. The platform will have a total of 40 vacancies per 
quarter, with the objective of training 160 individuals annually and ultimately qualifying 800 students 
over five years for the solar energy job market. Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's experience 
and skill set, and his desire to train and prepare students, the Petitioner must demonstrate his proposed 
endeavor offers benefits which extend beyond his community to impact the solar energy industry more 
broadly. Moreover, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific proposed 
endeavor of owning and operating a solar energy engineering company rather than the importance of 
the national initiatives and interests, industries, or fields. He has not done so. 
4 
It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without 
providing evidence to corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
2010). 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding 
his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5