dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17944407 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 24, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a maintenance, assembly, and renovation engineer, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that 
he is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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 . 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. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
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). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national 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 
foreign national 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 foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she 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; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national 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 foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined 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. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
Regarding his claim of eligibility under Dhanasar' s first prong, the Petitioner indicated that his proposed 
endeavor in the United States is to offer, through hisl I "business, maintenance 
services to residential and industrial sectors, applying my engineering and maintenance expertise that I 
have gained through my career" and "[h ]aving worked both with light industries such asl I and 
heavy industries such as cement production, metalworks and aluminum treatment and production have 
exposed me to a wide array of engineering and maintenance challenges, which allow his company to 
serve a diverse clientele."4 In addition, the Petitioner stated that he plans to provide "engineering 
services to cement, mining, and aluminum extrusion factories" and "support services to organizations that 
restructure cities in Florida." 5 He also explained that he will also contribute to industry revenue growth 
and "expects to pay $466,782 in tax payments to the US over the next 5 years."6 
The record includes articles about a shortage of STEM professionals and highly accomplished 
engineers in the United States. In addition, the Petitioner provided industry reports and articles 
indicating the Florida engineering services industry is experiencing a shortage of qualified engineering 
professionals and Florida has a need for maintenance engineers to keep up with the demands of the 
construction industry. The record therefore supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's 
proposed work as a maintenance, assembly, and renovation engineer has substantial merit. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." 7 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we farther 
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 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 At the time of filing, the Petitioner was the co-owner of1 I which was incorporated inl 12018 in 
Florida. 
5 In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner presented a business plan forl I C=:J dated September 2020. Regarding future staffing, his business plan anticipates thatl I will 
employ seven employees in 2020 and 14 employees in 2021 through 2024. In addition, the plan offers revenue projections 
of $350,000 in 2020, $630,000 in 2021, $693,000 in 2022, $762,300 in 2023, and $800,415 in 2024. The Petitioner, 
however, does not explain how these staffing and revenue forecasts were calculated. 
6 The business plan submitted by the Petitioner anticipates employing 14 employees beginning in 2021 and anticipates 
total payroll expenses of$230,000 in 2020, $439,500 in 2021, $461,475 in 2022, $484,549 in 2023, and $508,776 in 2024. 
Again, the Petitioner does not explain how these staffing and expense forecasts were calculated. 
3 
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. 
In his appellate brief, the Petitioner points to his background, education, work experience, and 
specialized training in his field. The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field relate to 
the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the 
foreign national." Id. at 890. 8 The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to 
undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues the Director disregarded the Petitioner's professional declaration as well 
as a letter froml la reliability engineer atl I that were allegedly submitted in 
response to the Director's RFE and these letters should be taken into consideration regarding the national 
importance of the submitted business plan. However, there appear to be unresolved inconsistencies with 
these statements. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988) (noting that "it is incumbent 
upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence" and that 
"[a]ttempts to explain or reconcile the conflicting accounts, absent competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth , in fact, lies, will not suffice"). 
For example, the Petitioner's professional declaration is dated April 2, 2019, and claims the Petitioner 
was currently working with I I a Florida c:==::J company, providing automation and 
environmentally friendly practices regarding industrial lJdisposal. However, the letter fromc=] 
I I is dated July 31, 2020, and claims! !was working with! I from 
"July 31, 2020, up to the present date." Additionally, the letter fro~ I is not probative 
evidence as it indicates the Petitioner was contracted to work fo~ I the same dayD 
wrote his letter but does not explain how, in that period of time, the Petitioner was able to 
._m-cr_e_a-se ................ __ __,sales "exponentially" or reduce factory outages "by 50%" as mentioned inc=J 
...._ ___ _, s letter. There is no competent objective evidence in the record before us that reconcile 
these inconsistencies. See Ho, 19 I&N at 591-592 .9 
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. Although the 
Petitioner's stateme nts reflect his intention to expand his business operations and to offer engineering 
8 To establish that it would be in the national interest to waive the job offer requirement , a petitioner must go beyond 
showing her expertise in a particular field. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a 
degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute, individuals of 
exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of 
their exceptional ability. Therefore , whether a given petitioner seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 
or as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree , that individual cannot qualify for a waiver just by 
demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in her field of expertise. See Dhanasar , 
26 I&N Dec. at 886 n.3. 
9 We also note that neither the Petitioner 's professional declaration nor the letter from! l appear in the record 
of the original RFE response , submitted on September 18, 2020, and neither documents were cited in the Petitioner's RFE 
response letter or in the submitted business plan . These docum ents appear to have been submitted on appeal as a copy of 
the previous RFE response . 
4 
services to future clients , he 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. Here, we conclude the 
record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his 
company , partnerships, and clientele to impact his field or the industry more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor "will create employment for qualified workers in the 
Engineering Services Industry" and is "well positioned to contribute to the development of the 
engineering sector in the U.S. through an offer of services that addressed the current needs of numerous 
cement, mining, and aluminum factories, as well as restructuring companies." The Petitioner indicates 
he "recognizes the potential of the Engineering Services Industry in the U.S. and has therefore created 
lasting relationships with business partners and clients" and that he will "provide professional expertise 
that will help bridge the gap between the projected demand and supply for engineering services in the 
U.S. market." However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to 
undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. Specifically , he has not shown that his projects ' future staffing levels 
and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States. 
While the sales forecasts for I I indicate that these projects have growth potential, 
they do not demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's 
undertakings would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar . 
Id. at 890. 
In addition, although the Petitioner asserts thatl I will employ U.S. workers, he has 
not offered sufficient evidence that the area where they will operate 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 or business dctivity. I 
Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that any increases in employment or income attributable t 
I l's operations stand to substantially affect economic activity or tax revenue in Florida or 
nationally . Accordingly, 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 frrst prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established 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 , with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5