dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 03, 2024 In Re: 33942069 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an engineer, 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 the record did not 
establish the EB-2 visa classification, that the proposed endeavor was of national importance, that the 
Petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor, or that it would be beneficial to waive the 
requirements of a job offer. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. 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). 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&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, 1 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. 
Id. 
TT. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
As a preliminary matter, we observe that the certificates of translation included in the petition are 
inadequate. Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language 
translation, and a certification from the translator that the English language translation is complete and 
accurate, and that they are competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b )(3). The certificates of translation included with the initial petition state under the description of 
translated document that they relate to "[s ]upporting documents, work letters, letters of recommendation, 
resumes, civil documents, other supporting documents." The certificates included in the response to the 
request for evidence (RFE) states that they pertain to "[d]iplomas, certificates, supporting documents." 
The record contains a wide variety of documents that are not clearly deliniated in these captions. Such a 
certification that does not clearly identify the translations it is certifying is not probative evidence that the 
certification relates to all of the translations in this record of proceeding. This type of deficiency in the 
certification results in the evidence accompanied by these translations to possess diminished value and 
are insufficient to demonstrate the validity of the foreign language materials. Nevertheless, as outlined 
below, even ifthe certificates oftranslation were completely properly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that he qualifies for a national interest wavier based on the record presented. This issue should be 
addressed in any future filings by the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner claimed eligibility for the EB-2 immigrant classification as an individual of advanced 
degree. However, because we conclude that he is not eligible for, and does not merit as a matter of 
discretion, a national interest waiver, and this determination is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the issue of eligibility as an individual of advanced degree. 
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 an 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in concluding 
that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner's proposal states that he will open an engineering consulting business that plans to "provide 
professional engineering and infrastructure consulting services to small and medium construction 
companies."2 The evidence provided does not demonstrate that this specific endeavor is of national 
importance. 
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." 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 his work. 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
Here, the Petitioner has not described how his consulting business will have a broader impact on the 
engineering field beyond his clients. The Petitioner argues that his proposed work is nationally 
important because it will "[s]upport, innovate and advise companies by introducing sustainable models" 
and "[h]Jave a positive impact on both the environment and the economy." Yet the record does not 
explain how the business would impact the overall engineering field more broadly on the level of 
national importance. The brief describes how generally protecting the environment and small 
businesses "is paramount to protecting U.S. interests, growth, and sustainability." However, these 
arguments ignore the requirements we set forth in Dhanasar. It is not the importance of the field that 
determines an endeavor's national importance, but rather how the Petitioner's specific endeavor will 
impact the field on a level commensurate with national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. The Petitioner has not sufficiently illustrated what factors in his consulting business in particular 
would have a national impact on the engineering field. 
2 We observe that the initial petition explicitly stated the proposed endeavor was to provide "consulting services." Yet in 
the personal statement submitted in response to the RFE, the Petitioner additionally states that he will establish a 
"construction company." A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition 
conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). The inclusion of 
construction is a distinct addition from the initial proposed endeavor as it significantly expands the endeavor outside the 
original focus. As the Dhanasar framework requires an analysis of the substantial merit and national impmiance of the 
specific endeavor proposed by an individual, such an addition is material to his eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Also, a petitioner must demonstrate eligibility requirements for the requested benefit at the time of filing the petition. 8 
C.F.R. § 103 .2(b)(1 ). The Petitioner's proposal to additionally act as a construction company, submitted for the first time 
in response to the RFE, cannot establish eligibility as it was not presented in the original petition. Accordingly, we will 
only consider the proposed endeavor as described in the initial filing when conducting our analysis under the Dhanasar 
framework. 
3 
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate national importance either. 3 The Petitioner provided a 
number of articles and reports, a letter from an expert, recommendation letters, and client interest 
letters. These articles and reports are oflittle evidentiary value as they do not address the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor or how it would have broad implications in the engineering field in a way 
that implicates national importance. 4 Moreover, though the letters of recommendation state that the 
Petitioner is a skilled engineer, they did not specify how the Petitioner's business will contribute to 
the engineering field on a nationally important level. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter labeled as an independent expert advisory opinion fromD 
I I As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by a petitioner as 
advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). Nonetheless, we will 
reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it 
is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here the advisory opinion is of little probative value as 
Ms. Iletter mainly describes her past experiences with the Petitioner on different projects. 
The letter generally commends the Petitioner's past work experience and endorses his work. 
Nonetheless, beyond the general statement that he will "contribute significantly to the field of civil 
engineering" it does not provide an objective analysis of the proposed endeavor's potential national 
importance. From the evidence provided, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor 
will have a national impact on the engineering industry. 
Moreover, he 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. An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, may have national 
importance. Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. Here, however, the business plan does not adequately 
support the projections of job and revenue creation. 
The Petitioner's business plan anticipates that the Petitioner's company will reach a total of 20 
employees in year five, with payroll expenses growing from $355,000 in year one to $1,474,821 in 
year five. He also projected generating $43,505 in net profit in year one, increasing to $226,604 in 
year five. Nevertheless, the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately 
clarify how these projections will be realized, nor does the record contain evidence to support the 
business plan's financial projections. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the 
evidence demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is probably true, where the determination of truth is 
made based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 376. In evaluating the evidence, truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but 
by its quality. See id. Here, the lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative 
value of the business plan. 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 We note that in response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted several articles and a letter that originated after the filing 
of the petition. A petitioner must meet all of the eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 
103 .2(b)(l), (12). 
4 
Even if we assumed all the projections in the business plan were accurate, the record lacks evidence 
demonstrating that its impact would be nationally important. The Petitioner's initial brief in support 
of the petition contends that his endeavor "will result in broad and significant economic ... benefits". 
Yet the Petitioner did not provide documentation to support these statements. The record does not 
illustrate how creating 20 jobs and generating the net profit as projected in the business plan, would 
have substantial positive economic effects on the level of national importance. The Petitioner must 
support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has therefore not provided sufficient information and evidence to 
demonstrate the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 
Accordingly, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is 
of national importance. 
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally 
important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond his clients to affect the region 
or nation more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. He has not shown that benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As 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 Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also 
Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5