dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 31, 2023 In Re: 27468029 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an engineer, seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 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. 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 the Petitioner qualifies 
as an individual of exceptional ability, but that the record did not establish that a waiver of the job 
offer requirement is 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 l&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 immigrant 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. 
"Exceptional ability" means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in 
the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). To establish exceptional ability, an individual must initially submit 
documentation that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish 
eligibility for this classification. 1 If a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits 
determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that the individual is recognized as 
having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. 
1 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of 
exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, the petitioner must then establish eligibility for a 
discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of 
the Act. While neither statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter 
of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a 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, 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to continue operating his company, 
I I which develops and builds commercial, industrial, an~d_r_e_s-id_e_n-t1-.a-1-e-le-c--t-ri_c_a_l_p_ro_~--e-c-ts-,-w-it_h_a~ 
focus on sustainability certifications, inl IFlorida. 
As stated above, the Director found as to the threshold issue of the Petitioner's eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 immigrant classification that the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional 
ability. Based upon the Petitioner's relevant education, work experience, license to practice 
engineering, and memberships in professional business and construction associations, we agree that 
the Petitioner satisfies at least three of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(k)(3 )(ii). 3 
Additionally, the record contains evidence of the Petitioner's recognition by peers and the media as 
an expert in his field and evidence of his contributions to the construction sector in Venezuela, 
particularly his time as the head of theI ka private industry group, 
organized as one of the chambers of the umbrella organization, I I which represents 
national business interests across different industries in the Venezuelan economy). The record 
contains evidence of his role during that time in managing collective bargaining negotiations at a 
national level and managing the chamber's response to the Venezuelan government's nationalization 
of construction-related industries. Therefore, we conclude that the evidence in its totality shows that 
the Petitioner is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the field, and we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has established that he is 
an individual of exceptional ability. 
The Director also determined that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and that the Petitioner 
is well-positioned to advance the endeavor. However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did 
not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, nor that, on balance, waiving the job 
offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS. 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) (possessing a degree, diploma, or certificate relating to the area of exceptional ability); 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) (possessing at least 10 years of full-time experience in the occupation); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) (a license to practice the profession); and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) (membership in a professional 
association). 
2 
In determining that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, 
the Director discussed the evidence in the record and many of the claims made by the Petitioner, 
including those relating to the construction labor shortage, the growth of the engineering and 
construction industries, the importance of small businesses to the U.S. economy, the impact of the 
construction industry on climate change, and the importance of science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) workers. However, the Director concluded that these claims, and the evidence 
in support of them, did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, because the 
claims primarily relate to the industry or the occupation rather than the proposed endeavor itself The 
Director determined that, even considering that the proposed endeavor involves a small business, a 
STEM field, and sustainability efforts, the Petitioner did not establish that the specific endeavor itself 
has national importance. The Director also reviewed and discussed the business plan and financial 
documents submitted and concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the endeavor has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and a copy of evidence previously submitted and asserts that 
he has established eligibility for a national interest waiver. The Petitioner first reiterates the claims 
related to his qualification as an individual of exceptional ability. Although the Director concluded 
that this requirement was established, the Petitioner asserts that an understanding of his qualifications 
and background is needed to assess the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner 
also contests the Director's conclusion that much of the evidence supports the importance of the 
industry and occupation overall, rather than establishing the specific endeavor's national importance. 
The Petitioner insists instead that the record does demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the specific, proposed endeavor is of national importance. The Petitioner stresses again on appeal that 
the endeavor relates to a STEM field, that it is a small business, and that the company intends to use 
and promote sustainable energy solutions. The Petitioner also claims that the company's potential to 
employ U.S. workers and have positive economic effects establishes its national importance. 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Petitioner's assertions do not overcome the Director's 
findings nor establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. First, as to the Petitioner's 
claim that his qualifications and background help establish his proposed endeavor's national 
importance, we agree with the Director that the evidence of a petitioner's skills, knowledge, and record 
of success generally relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the [noncitizen]" and whether they are well-positioned to advance it. 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. While a petitioner's past work and achievements may be 
helpful in illustrating how they plan to carry out their proposed endeavor and in some circumstances 
its potential to have a broad impact, in general the focus of the first prong is on the proposed endeavor 
itself and not the petitioner. See id. The issue here is whether the Petitioner's specific endeavor-to 
continue operating his electrical contracting and construction business-has national importance 
under Dhanasar 's first prong. The Petitioner has not explained how his achievements in the field 
demonstrate that this endeavor has the potential to impact the construction, engineering, or electrical 
contracting fields or the economy at a level commensurate with national importance. 
We are also unpersuaded by the Petitioner's assertions on appeal that the claims previously raised in 
response to the request for evidence (RFE) support the proposed endeavor's national importance. The 
Petitioner raised six specific points in his RFE response in an attempt to establish national importance; 
3 
the Director concluded that these primarily related to the industry or occupation or otherwise did not 
establish national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner insists that these points do in fact establish 
the endeavor's national importance and that the Director's conclusion to the contrary was the result of 
"confusion" on the part of the Director. The Petitioner on appeal attempts to provide "a more detailed 
explanation" of these six points to demonstrate that they in fact relate to the specific endeavor rather 
than the industry in general. But even with the additional details that the Petitioner provides, we agree 
with the Director that these points do not establish the national importance of the specific, proposed 
endeavor. 
Of these points, several simply repeat the industry-wide claims related to the importance of STEM 
workers, small businesses, the construction industry, and the construction labor shortage. While such 
evidence can be helpful in establishing the potential need for and interest in construction contracting 
businesses such as the Petitioner's, this primarily speaks to the substantial merit of the proposed 
endeavor, which we agree with the Director has been established. Additionally, while such evidence 
could also be a positive factor in determining national importance, it is not, by itself: sufficient for the 
Petitioner to meet his burden of proof We agree with the Director that in determining whether a 
proposed endeavor has national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, 
field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus 
on the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The points raised by the Petitioner that do relate to the potential impact and benefit of the Petitioner's 
specific endeavor include the direct and indirect jobs the company may create, potentially in an area 
of high unemployment, the fact that the company is an established subcontractor with larger 
construction companies, and the fact that the company will incorporate sustainable and energy 
efficient solutions in its projects. Regarding potential job creation, the Petitioner states that the 
company has created 11 total jobs, including regular employees and contract workers. However, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that this number ofjobs created, even considering the claimed "indirect" 
jobs, has the potential to provide substantial economic benefits at a level commensurate with national 
importance. See id. at 890. The Petitioner also submitted a business plan with financial forecast. The 
financial forecast states that project sales in 2022 were approximately $700,000 and estimates that the 
company will have projects totaling approximately $1.25 million in 2023. The plan further forecasts 
that sales will grow 30% in 2024 and 2025, leading to approximately $2 million by 2025. But again, 
the Petitioner did not provide evidence to support the claim that the benefits to the regional or national 
economy from these business operations would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Matter of Dhanasar. Id. Additionally, in support of the claim that the 
company is an established subcontractor, the Petitioner provided copies of agreements with another 
construction company for the Petitioner's company to provide electrical subcontractor services on past 
projects. Although these agreements help show some of the business operations of the company, they 
do not establish that these operations have the potential to provide substantial positive economic 
effects. Id. 
Finally, we conclude that the Petitioner's claim that the company will use sustainable and energy 
efficient solutions in its projects does not establish the endeavor's national importance. In support of 
this claim, the Petitioner primarily relies on evidence relating to the global problem of climate change 
and the national attention on addressing it. However, the Petitioner does not demonstrate that the 
4 
company will advance any methods or services that have the potential to have a broad impact on 
climate change. For example, the Petitioner does not claim that the company intends to develop and 
implement any new processes or products that may offer advances in energy savings beyond what is 
currently available on the market. Here, the Petitioner attempts to analogize his endeavor with the 
language in Dhanasar that an endeavor that offers "improved manufacturing processes" may have 
national importance. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. But the Petitioner does not propose 
an improved engineering, electrical, or energy efficiency process, and simply proposes to implement 
sustainable practices and energy efficient technologies which are already in use. 
The Petitioner's claims on appeal do not overcome the basis for the Director's findings as they relate 
to the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Moreover, upon de novo review, we agree that 
the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Because the 
documentation in the record does not establish national importance as required by the first prong of 
the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 
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 ofL-A-C-, 
26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5