dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
In Re: 34889793 Date: NOV. 21, 2024 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, _________________ _, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification for the Beneficiary, a project controls engineer employee, 
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. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the best 
interest. 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. 
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: 
1 See 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• 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. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary proposes to continue serving as a project controls engineer withl I"responsible 
for initiating, processing, and tracking architects and general contractors' assignments and contracts." 
The Beneficiary currently fulfills these duties for I I client, the I I School District 
I l in its capital improvement program, which includes "construction engineering projects to repair, 
rehabilitate, and build school facilities." 
In the denial decision, the Director determined the Beneficiary qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa 
classification as an advanced degree professional. However, the Director found the Beneficiary did 
not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver as he did not demonstrate the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor or 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. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar 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 whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we 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. 
Although the Director found the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Director also determined 
the evidence did not establish its national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner contends the 
Director's "conclusion the endeavor does not have national importance is arbitrary, capricious, [and] not 
supported by law or USCIS regulations or policy," as well as overly restrictive in nature. We do not 
find error in the Director's analysis of the evidence and concur that the evidence does not demonstrate 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner asserts the national importance of the endeavor is self-evident asl lacts as a project 
manager for school districts' capital improvement programs across the United States. As stated, the 
Beneficiary is a project controls engineer forl Icapital improvement program forl I The 
Petitioner contends the economic impact and significant potential for employment related to their work 
with I I has been established. Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that since 2021, I I work for 
I I has included the delivery of 625 projects that, in total, generated over four billion dollars and 
2 
employment of thousands of individuals. Similarly, the Petitioner submitted a 2023 proposal from 
to I I stating the proposal demonstrates I I responsibility for the management of 18 
subconsultant partners through its own 27 program leadership personnel and 95 support staffmembers. 
However, the economic and employment data proffered by the Petitioner relates to rather than the 
Beneficiary. The Petitioner does not claim the Beneficiary himself will employ U.S. workers or that his 
own position within I lhas directly resulted in or will directly result in the hiring of U.S. workers. 
Further, though the Petitioner has asserted the economic impact of I I work at large, it does not 
assert, and the record does not otherwise reflect, the Beneficiary's own work as project controls engineer 
for I I would provide substantial economic benefits to the region or national economy more broadly 
at the requisite level. 
The Petitioner asserts the work performed by I I for school districts across the U.S. is nationally 
important due to its "potential impact on security, society, and environment." In addition, the Petitioner 
asserts the Beneficiary's endeavor and work for I I will affect "students of public school systems 
across the U.S., who will benefit from advancements in the field of endeavor." While we acknowledge 
the importance of capital improvements for school districts across the nation, the importance of the 
proposed endeavor is not evaluated by the importance of the profession in which he proposes to engage, 
but rather the specific potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor. Dhanasar at 889-890. The 
purpose of the national interest waiver is not to ensure continued employment or facilitate U.S. job 
searches in industries that may have national significance. Rather, anyone seeking a waiver must show 
that the specific endeavor they propose to undertake has national importance. Id. Therefore, the general 
significance or potential impact of the industries in which I lworks does not specifically inform the 
importance of the Beneficiary's own proposed work in the company, his endeavor. 
The Petitioner asserts the proposed endeavor relates to a science, technology, engineering, or 
mathematics (STEM) field, which have been characterized as critical and emerging technologies. The 
Petitioner contends the proposed endeavor aims to advance the fields of construction engineering and 
management for public schools. Even if the Petitioner's endeavor lays within a STEM field, the 
evidence must still demonstrate this endeavor has national importance. See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. Many proposed endeavors that aim to 
advance STEM technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, not only have 
substantial merit in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, but also have sufficiently broad 
potential implications to demonstrate national importance. Id. On the other hand, while proposed 
classroom teaching activities in STEM, for example, may have substantial merit in relation to U.S. 
educational interests, such activities, by themselves, generally are not indicative of an impact in the 
field of STEM education more broadly, and therefore generally would not establish their national 
importance. Id. Here, the Beneficiary's role in includes "responsib[ility] for initiating, 
processing, and tracking architects and general contractors' assignments and contracts." The 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's performance of his duties advance STEM 
technologies or research or has sufficiently broad implications for the field to demonstrate its national 
importance. 
Overall, we acknowledge the Beneficiary's desire to continue his work with the Petitioner but the 
Petitioner has not established his work as a project controls engineer will further the industries' objectives 
in a nationally significant manner, have broader implication in the field, have significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers, or have substantial positive economic or societal effects. As such, the Petitioner 
3 
has not demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor or the Beneficiary's eligibility 
for a discretionary national interest waiver. 
B. Additional Dhanasar Prongs 
As our finding on this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and reserve 
the Petitioner's arguments relating to the Director's adverse determinations of his eligibility under the 
additional prong of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
(stating that "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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ITT. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4