dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 07, 2024 In Re: 34846103 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a head engineering consultant, 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 Petitioner did not 
establish that his proposed endeavor would have national importance. 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 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. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred in finding that his proposed endeavor would 
not have national importance. He further argues that the Director erred in finding that the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor offers benefits which extend beyond the community 
to impact the industry more broadly. 
Regarding the issue of whether the Petitioner ' s proposed endeavor has national importance, we adopt 
and affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter of Burbano, 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 has been "universally accepted by every other 
circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight 
circuit courts in holding that appe11ate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long 
as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
As a general matter, an appeal must specifica11y identify any erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement 
of fact in the unfavorable decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Here, while the Petitioner argues 
on appeal the national importance of his proposed endeavor and that it would impact his industry more 
broadly, he does not further elaborate how the evidence submitted with his petition establishes his 
eligibility. Commensurate with the Petitioner's burden of proof is the responsibility for explaining 
the significance of proffered evidence. Repaka v. Beers, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1219 (S.D. Cal. 2014); 
see also Adler v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 112 F.3d 1475, 1481 n. 12 (11th Cir. 1997) (noting in a civil 
case that, absent plain error, it is not the place of an appellate body to grant appellants relief "based on 
facts they did not relate"). The Petitioner has not done so here. Upon review of the record, we agree 
with the Director that the submitted evidence, including the Petitioner's business plan, past work 
contracts, and industry reports and articles, do not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor to launch a mechanical engineering consultancy. 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the remaining eligibility requirements for the requested national interest waiver. 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 did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2