dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 21, 2025 In Re: 35426098 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an engineering project manager and entrepreneur, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the 
Beneficiary qualified for classification as an advanced degree professional and his endeavor has 
substantial merit, the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary's endeavor is of national 
importance, or that, on balance, a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Director discussed the Petitioner's business plan and recommendation letters. Regarding the 
former, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not adequately explain how he intends to realize 
the business plan's staffing and revenue projections, nor did he establish that the projections would 
result in a level of job growth or revenue generation that is commensurate with national importance. 
And although the Director acknowledged that the recommendation letters discussed the Petitioner's 
experience and achievements, the Director determined that the letters did not include information 
about the proposed endeavor or explain how it is nationally important. 
The Director also addressed the various industry articles and reports and found that they did not discuss 
the Petitioner's endeavor. The Director noted that when dete1mining national importance, the relevant 
question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work; 
instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 
889. 
In sum, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not substantiate that his specific business 
endeavor would trigger substantial positive economic benefits or that it would otherwise result in a 
potential prospective impact at the national importance level. 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&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. 53 7, 53 7 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 
I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting 
that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below "is not only common practice, but 
universally accepted"). 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director "imposed novel substantive and evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations." However, the Petitioner does not point to 
specific examples of this within the Director's denial. Importantly, the Petitioner also does not offer 
a detailed analysis explaining the particular ways in which the Director "imposed novel substantive 
and evidentiary requirements" in denying the petition. 
The Petitioner further alleges that the Director "did not apply the proper standard of proof in this case, 
instead imposing a stricter standard ... to the detriment of the Appellant." Except where a different 
standard is specified by law, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing 
immigration benefit requests. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375 (AAO 2010). 
Accordingly, "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing national interest 
waiver petitions. See generally 1 USCIS Policy Manual, E.4(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. While the Petitioner asserts that he has provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate his 
eligibility for a national interest waiver, he does not further explain or identify a specific instance in 
which the Director applied a standard of proof other than the preponderance of evidence in denying 
the petition. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Director did not "give due regard" to certain evidence, such as his 
resume, business plan, letters of recommendation, or the industry reports and articles, he previously 
submitted. However, as noted above, the Director specifically mentioned and discussed content in the 
Petitioner's business plan, and the Director explained why the submitted letters of recommendation 
were not sufficient to establish the proposed endeavor's national importance. Further, while the 
Petitioner stresses his credentials and work experience, such evidence addresses the Petitioner's 
knowledge, skills, education, and experience; these are considerations under Dhanasar's second 
prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Evidence of the Petitioner's credentials and experience in the field of 
engineering does not demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor or establish that 
the impact of the endeavor would extend beyond the Petitioner's clients and employees. And while 
the Petitioner notes that he previously submitted articles and industry reports, which the Director also 
discussed, it is unclear how this evidence establishes the proposed endeavor's national importance 
given that none of these submissions pertain specifically to the endeavor in question, but rather more 
broadly discuss the benefits of small businesses and the importance of immigrant entrepreneurship. 
As to the Petitioner's assertion that he will play a pivotal role in addressing an industry shortage of 
business professionals, the national shortage of business professionals is not, in and of itself, sufficient 
to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor. Further, the Department of Labor 
directly addresses U.S. worker shortages through the labor certification process. 
2 
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. 1 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. 
1 See INS v. Bagamasbad. 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
3