dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Energy Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 7, 2024 In Re: 31109265 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur and consultant in the energy industry, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree, 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 denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional, he did not establish that a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 1 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. 
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." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 2 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
1 An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a 
bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor 's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
2 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
• 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. 
The Petitioner proposed to establish a company in Kentucky providing consulting services "for the 
development and management of energy efficiency projects that promote the use of alternative 
renewable energy sources and thus mitigate the impact of the use of fossil fuels as conventional energy 
sources." He stated that the purpose of his proposed endeavor was "to benefit professional electricians, 
civil engineers, architects, computer engineers, agricultural engineers and American companies that 
depend on or use electrical energy as the main source for their operation or business." In response to 
the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a letter from the I I Chamber 
of Commerce inviting him to be a part of their team of renewable energy consultants. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was of substantial merit, and we 
agree. However, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor 
had national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "ample evidence was provided that clearly and unambiguously 
speaks to the national importance" of his proposed endeavor and states that the Director did not 
"contemplate or discuss the totality of the evidence." Specifically, the Petitioner notes he provided 
articles that reflected government interest in his proposed endeavor and indicated his proposed 
endeavor "is intricately aligned with the United States' strategic goals for energy sustainability and 
efficiency." The Petitioner also asserts he provided documentation to corroborate the economic 
benefits of his proposed endeavor "by and through the personal statements submitted with the initial 
petition and RFE response." 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 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 at 889. We look for broader implications. An 
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 889-890. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner provided several articles about national initiatives in the energy 
sector, including from the White House, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the 
United Nations, and the Environmental Protection Agency. However, in determining national 
importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which 
the individual will work; instead, the focus is on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake" and the endeavor's "potential prospective impact." Id. at 889. In Dhanasar, 
we gave significant weight to "probative expert letters from individuals holding senior positions in 
academia, government, and industry that describe the importance of hypersonic propulsion research 
as it relates to U.S. strategic interests" and "detailed expert letters describing U.S. Government 
interest" in Dr. Dhanasar's specific research. Id. at 892. Here, the Petitioner has not provided similar 
evidence, such as the expert opinions, letters from government entities, or other similar probative 
2 
evidence detailing how his specific endeavor would impact a matter that is a subject of national 
initiatives. None of the submitted articles specifically mention the Petitioner's endeavor or discuss 
the government's interest in promoting the use of his company. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated the potential prospective impact of his specific endeavor to a matter that is the subject 
of national initiatives. 
Moreover, while the Petitioner asserts that the submitted White House and other government 
documents support his work in advancing technical-economic business models, implementing 
environmentally beneficial projects, and combating climate change, he did not sufficiently explain and 
support with evidence how his proposed endeavor would have national impacts on these broad national 
and international issues beyond impacting only businesses that would work directly with him. The 
Petitioner further states that "[h ]is plan to establish a company in I I Kentucky, 
addresses a critical gap in a state with low levels of renewable energy implementation," and therefore, 
would "bolster the local economy but also aligns with federal objectives to enhance renewable energy 
usage across the nation." The Petitioner, however, has not provided evidence demonstrating that his 
proposed endeavor would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance. It is insufficient 
to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing 
evidence to substantiate such claims. Furthermore, while any basic economic activity has the potential 
to positively impact the economy, the Petitioner has not established how his specific endeavor stands 
to generate substantial positive economic effects in the region where his company will operate or in 
other parts of the United States. 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. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond his company and its future clientele to impact his field, energy efficiency, 
the U.S. economy, or U.S. societal welfare more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
Upon review of his personal statements, we note that the Petitioner relies, in part, on his experience in 
the energy industry to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. However, the 
Petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar' s second prong, which 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national importance 
of his proposed work. The Petitioner further contends on appeal that the Director imposed "novel and 
undefined standards" by focusing on his skills and experience when assessing the first prong. 
However, as discussed, it was the Petitioner who asserted that the Petitioner's experience in the energy 
industry was relevant to demonstrating the national importance of his proposed endeavor, therefore, 
any alleged error in the Director's evaluation of the Petitioner's skills and experience in relation to 
demonstrating national importance is misplaced. See generally Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. at, 
350 n.5 (citingJaparkulova v. Holder, 615 F.3d 696, 701 (6th Cir. 2010) (stating that error is harmless 
where there is no "reason to believe that . . . remand might lead to a different result" ( citation 
omitted))). 
The Petitioner also did not show that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without evidence 
regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record 
3 
does not demonstrate benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy reaching the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Finally, the Petitioner relies on Buletini v. INS, 850 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994) to support his 
assertion that the Director erred in failing to consider all the evidence in its totality. But the court in 
Buletini did not reject the concept of examining the quality of the evidence presented to determine 
whether it establishes a petitioner's eligibility, nor does the Buletini decision suggest that USCIS 
abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. When 
USCIS provides reasoned consideration of the petition, it will not be required to specifically address 
each claim a petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence a petitioner 
presents. See, e.g., Ren v. USCIS, 60 F.4th 89, 97 (4th Cir. 2023) ("[S]o long as [USCIS] has given 
reasoned consideration to the petition, and made adequate findings, we will not require that it address 
specifically each claim the petitioner made or each piece of evidence the petitioner presented." 
(cleaned up)); Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1142-43 (5th Cir. 1984) ("[The Board of 
Immigration Appeals] has no duty to write an exegesis on every contention"). 
Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we 
need not address his eligibility under the remaining prongs, and we hereby reserve them. 3 The burden 
of proof is on the Petitioner to establish that he meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. The Petitioner 
has not done so here and, therefore, we conclude that he has not established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 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 of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516. 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4