dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20813791 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 05, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a maintenance, assembly, and renovation engineer, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, as well as a national 
interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 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 
Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification, he had not established the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor, that he is well positioned to carry out the endeavor, or that a 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
We dismissed the subsequent appeal, concluding that the Petitioner had not overcome the Director's 
findings. The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner 
continues to assert he is eligible for a national interest waiver and that we erred in our decision. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the combined motion to reopen 
and reconsider. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that 
the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record 
of proceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the applicant has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening or 
reconsideration, an applicant must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission 
of a properly completed Form I 2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show 
proper cause for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we note that by regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior 
decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) . The issue before us is whether the Petitioner has submitted new 
facts to warrant reopening or has established that our decision to dismiss the prior combined motion 
was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. We therefore incorporate our prior 
decision by reference and will repeat only certain facts and evidence as necessary to address the 
Petitioner's claims on motion. 
Throughout his brief on motion, the Petitioner repeatedly states that the "NSC" erred. We assume that 
this abbreviation refers to the "Nebraska Service Center." However, as explained above, a motion is 
limited to the prior decision, which is our dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal, not the Nebraska Service 
Center's denial of the petition. On motion, the Petitioner does not allege that the AAO erred in the 
prior decision. Nevertheless, we consider the Petitioner's arguments that the NSC erred only insofar 
as they may pertain to our prior dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal. While we may not address each 
piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
As stated, the filing before us does not entitle the Petitioner to a reconsideration of the denial of the 
petition. Rather, a motion to reconsider pertains to our most recent decision. Therefore, we cannot 
consider new objections to the earlier denial, and the Petitioner cannot use the present filing to make 
new allegations of error at prior stages of the proceeding. 
The Petitioner alleges that the NSC (AAO) erroneously applied the law, inappropriately reviewed 
evidence, applied a higher and stricter standard of proof, as well as abused its discretion in not 
considering precedent decisions. In addition, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence he provided 
establishes his eligibility for a national interest waiver. The Petitioner argues that he has shown the 
impact of the proposed endeavor extends beyond his company, partnerships, and clients. He also 
argues that the proposed endeavor has national implications, has a significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers, and offers substantial positive economic effects. In support of his arguments, he references 
his business plan, an advisory opinion froml I the benefits of industrial and 
maintenance engineering, the services he will provide through his engineering business, and his 
qualifications. We briefly discuss this evidence and explain why it does not sufficiently support a 
finding that his proposed endeavor has national importance. 
First, we conclude that the Petitioner heavily relies upon his personal and professional qualifications 
to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. As we explained in our prior decision, 
this is insufficient to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Specifically, we 
noted that the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." See 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 890 (AAO 2016) 
2 
Further, the Petitioner repeatedly emphasizes the importance of the field in which he will work. As 
we explained in our prior decision, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not 
the importance of the field or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See id. at 889. Our prior 
decision reflects that we considered the Petitioner's arguments and evidence concerning the 
importance of the field, but nevertheless determined that the Petitioner's evidence had not sufficiently 
shown that the impact of the proposed endeavor extends beyond his company, partnerships, and clients 
to impact his field or the industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner references his level of investment in his company, ______ ___, and the 
impact he expects his proposed endeavor wi 11 create. Our prior decision reflects specific consideration 
of the Petitioner's business plan, particularly the revenue and job creation projections. The Petitioner 
explains that he used market analysis to calculate these figures. However, overall industry trends and 
statistics do not sufficiently account for the specific staffing, payrol I, and revenue figures the Petitioner 
provided for his proposed endeavor. The projections suggest that the Petitioner aspires to achieve 
particular goals for his company; however, the actual figures appear to be little more than conjecture. 
As we noted in our prior decision, the Petitioner anticipates employing seven people by the year 2020 
and fourteen people from years 2021 to 2024. However, the Petitioner has not explained how this 
represents a significant potential to employ U.S. workers such that we can conclude that his proposed 
endeavor has national importance. We also mentioned the Petitioner's anticipated revenue and payroll 
expenses; however, as noted in our prior decision, it is unclear how the Petitioner calculated these 
projections. While we acknowledge market analysis of the industry, which includes growth forecasts, 
we cannot conclude that this sufficiently substantiates the Petitioner's claimed projections. The 
Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Moreover, not all business activity stands to impact 
the economy on a level commensurate with national importance. Therefore, even if the Petitioner had 
sufficiently substantiated his claimed projections, he would still need to explain how these revenue 
and payroll figures signify the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner repeatedly relies upon his business plan, which emphasizes the value and merit of the 
Petitioner's services and qualifications. However, this does not sufficiently establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. For instance, the benefit of the Petitioner's services appears to 
be contingent upon other entities hiring him for his services, which does not suggest that the proposed 
endeavor will have an impact rising to the level national importance. Further, the Petitioner mentions 
in his business plan that he intends to teach and train others, thereby professionally developing and 
assisting others in the field. However, these activities appear to impact the individuals whom he 
teaches and trains, not the field as a whole. As we noted in our prior decision, we determined that Dr. 
Dhanasar's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they 
would not impact his field more broadly. Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 893. Likewise, we also conclude 
that the Petitioner's teaching and training of his employees does not sufficiently support a finding that 
his proposed endeavor would impact the field. 
The Petitioner provided an advisory opinion letter from I a a professor in the 
manufacturing and engineering department of University. The opinion letter discussed 
the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. Regarding the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor. I I discussed the importance of industrial and manufacturing 
3 
maintenance to the economy and the talent shortfalls in science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) fields. However) I has conflated the importance of STEM and the 
Petitioner's field in general with the importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
also discussed the benefits of the services the Petitioner offers through l ____ 
While we agree that the Petitioner's services are beneficial and have merit, this does not 
sufficiently establish how the benefits of such services extend beyond his company, partnerships, and 
clientele to impact his field or the industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. Although I I referenced that as a result of the Petitioner's repair and 
maintenance services, the Petitioner will enable other companies and industries to be more productive, 
I I did not offer sufficient analysis or detail to establish how this impact extends beyond the 
Petitioner's company, partnerships, and clientele. Finally, I lturned to the Petitioner's 
qualifications and expertise to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. However, 
as explained, the Petitioner's qualifications to carry out his proposed endeavor do not establish the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted for the Petitioner as 
advisory. Matter of Caron Int'! , Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comrn'r 1988). However, 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.I I largely supported his opinion by focusing 
on factors that do not bear upon the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Therefore, 
his opinion does not sufficiently support a finding that the proposed endeavor extends beyond the 
Petitioner's company, partnerships, and clientele to impact the field or the industry more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance. 
Our prior decision reflected a consideration of the reference materials concerning industrial 
maintenance and talent shortages, the President's interest in bolstering education in STEM fields, and 
the statistics and forecasts in these areas. We concluded that these materials supported the Director's 
finding that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, the articles and reports address 
the industry as a whole, rather than the specific proposed endeavor. As these materials do not contain 
analysis of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, it cannot be concluded that they support a 
finding that the endeavor has national importance. 
Regarding the letters of support from the Petitioner's former colleagues, we conclude that the letters 
do not support a finding of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong. The authors of 
the letters discussed the results he achieved for his employers and clients and how the Petitioner 
performed well on various projects in the past. However, the authors did not sufficiently explain how 
the Petitioner's performance or the results he achieved extended beyond his employer and the specific 
parties involved to impact the field more broadly. In addition, the authors praised the Petitioner's 
personal and professional qualifications, which, as explained, pertain to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. As stated above, we are ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of opinion 
letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. at 795. Here, the opinion letters do not 
4 
sufficiently discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or explain why it has national importance. 
Therefore, they are of little probative value in this matter. 
The Petitioner generally alleges a failure to consider precedent decisions when dismissing the 
Petitioner's appeal; however, the Petitioner does not point to any specific precedential decisions that 
we overlooked. The Petitioner refers to several non-precedent decision concerning petitioners who we 
found eligible for a national interest waiver. These decisions were not published as precedent and 
therefore do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). We acknowledge 
the Petitioner's attempts to provide similar evidence to that which the petitioners provided in the 
referenced non-precedent decisions. However, these previous decisions may be distinguished based 
on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. For 
instance, in Matter of F-E-, ID# 46885 (AAO Mar. 20, 2017), we determined that the proposed 
endeavor would affect the mining field more broadly. Similarly, in Matter of T-U-O-A-, ID# 77945 
(AAO Dec. 29, 2016), we determined that the impact of that petitioner's work would extend beyond 
his employer to enable all users to access supercomputing capabilities. Therefore, the specific facts of 
the individual cases are not analogous to the matter at hand. Unlike the petitioners in the referenced 
non-precedent decisions, the Petitioner has not adequately established that his proposed endeavor 
stands to impact his field more broadly or extend beyond his company, partnerships, and clientele. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant has not shown that our prior decision contained errors of law 
or policy, or that the decision was incorrect based on the record at the time of that decision. Therefore, 
the motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider, and it must be dismissed. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
Initially, we note that motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same 
reasons as are petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered 
evidence. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 108 (1988)); 
see also Selimi v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 736, 739 (7th Cir. 2004). There is a strong public interest in 
bringing proceedings to a close as promptly as is consistent with giving both parties a fair opportunity to 
develop and present their respective cases. INS v. Abudu, 485 at 107. 
Based on its discretion, USCIS "has some latitude in deciding when to reopen a case" and "should have 
the right to be restrictive." Id. at 108. Granting motions too freely could permit endless delay when 
foreign nationals continuously produce new facts to establish eligibility, which could result in needlessly 
wasting time attending to filing requests. See generally INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 108. The new facts 
must possess such significance that, "if proceedings . . . were reopened, with all the attendant delays, 
the new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case." Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 
464, 473 (BIA 1992); see also Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230, 1239-40 (10th Cir. 2013). 
Therefore, a party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 at 110. 
With the current motion, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
The Petitioner submits a sworn affidavit, evidence of a purchase order from 
tori I services, as well asl I bank statements, evidencing 
deposits froml I Even if we accept this evidence as credible, it appears to 
pertain to the Petitioner's commencement of business activities in the United States, which relates more 
5 
to whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his endeavor under the second prong of the 
Dhanasar than the national importance of the proposed endeavor under the first prong. Presumably, the 
Petitioner also presents this evidence in an attempt to address unresolved inconsistencies in the 
Petitioner's professional declaration and in a letter from _____ However, as we thoroughly 
discussed these inconsistencies in our prior decision, additional evidence regarding them cannot be 
considered new. 
As we explained in our prior decision: 
[T]he Petitioner's professional declaration is dated April 2, 2019, and claims the Petitioner 
was currently working with_ I a Florida cement company, providing automation 
and environmental! friendly practices regarding industrial oil disposal. However, the 
letter from is dated July 31, 2020, and claims I I was working 
with from "July 31, 2020, up to the present date." Additionally, the letter 
from is not probative evidence as it indicates the Petitioner was contracted 
to work for __ the same day I I wrote his letter but does not explain 
how, in that period of time, the Petitioner was able to increase I I sales 
"exponentially" or reduce factory outages "by 50%" as mentioned in I 
letter. 
The Petitioner asserts in his sworn affidavit that is the same entity as 
_ While this may be true, the Petitioner has not offered independent and objective evidence of this. 
Even if we assume that these names refer to the same entity, this would not resolve the inconsistencies in 
the record. 
The Petitioner explains in his affidavit that he wrote a statement in his native language of Portuguese in 
April 2019, which he later updated and translated into English in April 2020 but forgot to update the date 
from April 2019 to April 2020. However, this explanation does not resolve the inconsistencies we 
discussed in our prior decision. First and foremost, the Petitioner has not offered any evidence to address 
the issues we identified in thel I letter. Furthermore, the Petitioner appears to either 
confuse his "Professional Declaration," submitted on appeal, with his "Petitioner Letter," submitted with 
the initial filing, or to suggest that they are the same document, one of which is the updated version of the 
other. 
The "Petitioner Letter," included in the initial filing, is comprised of an undated typed statement in 
Portuguese that the Petitioner signed. Accompanying the "Petitioner Letter" is an English translation of 
it, which contains the translator's signature at the bottom with the date April 5, 2019, and a statement that 
I !translated the document.1 By contrast, the "Professional Declaration," a document that 
appears to have been submitted for the first time on appeal, is dated April 2, 2019, and does not appear to 
have a Portuguese original, but rather, is itself in English. 
The Petitioner's explanation that he forgot to update a date from April 2019 to April 2020 when he 
translated and updated his own statement for submission in response to the Director's request for evidence 
1 On motion, the Petitioner provides a new translation of his "Petitioner Letter," translated by on October 
20, 2021. 
6 
(RFE) adds further inconsistencies to the matter. First, the Petitioner's undated "Petitioner Letter" was 
already translated by I on April 5, 2019, and therefore the Petitioner would not need to 
translate his own statement into English. Second, as the ''Petitioner Letter" is undated, this would appear 
to negate a need to update the date, and therefore would not occasion the Petitioner to accidentally forget 
to update the date. Furthermore, if the Petitioner was capable enough in both languages to translate the 
document himself, we would question why the Petitioner wrote a document in Portuguese instead of 
English in the first place. 
Regarding the "Professional Declaration," dated April 2, 2019, the Petitioner did not provide any 
documentation to suggest that this had an accompanying Portuguese original. Further, as explained, it 
was submitted for the first time on appeal and therefore, was presumably the most recent and current 
statement available at the time, negating the need for it to be updated.2 Therefore, even if the 
"Professional Declaration" is the document for which the Petitioner claims he failed to update the date, 
this would not resolve its first-time appearance on appeal and the lack of a previous version in the record. 
If the Petitioner purports to explain that the "Petitioner Letter" was updated and renamed the "Professional 
Declaration," this would not resolve the fact that the "Petitioner Letter" was undated and would therefore 
not require a date change. Furthermore, whether the "Professional Declaration" is dated either Apri I 2019 
or April 2020 does not resolve the inconsistency that the Petitioner claimed to be providing services to 
I I earlier than when thel I letter stated that such services commenced. 
The Petitioner also hi hli hts that his business plan, dated September 2020, contains the statement that 
most prominent supplier is I I a cement 
manufacturer based i Florida."3 Presumably, he references this information to clarify that 
the business relationship with I I as referenced in his "Professional Declaration," existed in the 
year 2020 in order to support his assertion that he simply forgot to update the date from April 2019 to 
April 2020. However, as explained above, the Petitioner's affidavit creates further inconsistencies rather 
than resolving the inconsistencies we already identified in our prior decision. In addition, the Petitioner 
states on motion that he worked with from Februar 2020 to August 2020. 
If the Petitioner began his business relationship with in February 2020, this 
would conflict with the information rovided in the letter. Second, if the Petitioner 
ended his relationship with in August 2020, the statement in his September 
2020 business plan that "is" a supplier would appear to be inaccurate, as 
the use of the present tense insinuates a current relationship. 
Moreover, the statement in the business plan that the Petitioner's "most prominent supplier isl I 
suggests that I supplies the Petitioner's company with 
cement to carry out its operations. In other words, it appears as though the Petitioner is one ofl I 
2 As explained in our prior decision, the Petitioner argued on appeal that the Director disregarded the Petitioner's 
professional declaration, as well as a letter froml I that were allegedly submitted in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE). The Petitioner further argued on appeal that these letters should be taken into 
consideration regarding the national importance of the proposed endeavor. However, as we explained in our prior 
decision, "neither the Petitioner's professional declaration nor the letter from appear in the record of the 
original RFE response, submitted on September 18, 2020, and neither documents were cited in the Petitioner's RFE 
response letter or in the submitted business plan. These documents appear to have been submitted on appeal as a copy of 
the previous RFE response." The Petitioner does not argue on motion that we erred in this determination. 
3 The Petitioner submitted the business plan in his September 2020 response to the Director's RFE. 
7 
customers. However, on motion, the Petitioner suggests that _____ 
_ is the Petitioner's client and has contracted the Petitioner's company for maintenance work, as 
evidenced by a purchase order and bank statements that contain deposits from ______ 
I I In his affidavit on motion and in his Professional Declaration submitted on a eal the Petitioner 
lists out the services that his company provides tol I however, the 
purchase order does not reflect these services. Rather, it simply states tha ______ charges 
$57,200 for a "Blanket Inspection." Based upon the evidence provided, it cannot be concluded that 
I I or I I is the Petitioner's client. More importantly, this purchase 
order does not resolve the statement in the business plan suggesting thatl I 
supplies the Petitioner with cement, nor does it resolve the inconsistencies we identified in our prior 
decision. As we explained in our prior decision, the Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 
591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and 
sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. Even if the 
Petitioner had credibly established that I I is his company's client and that it 
contracted the Petitioner's company for services, this would still not establish the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor, as the business relationship appears to benefit the parties involved but does not 
stand to impact the field more broadly or rise to the level of national importance. 
Lastly, we acknowledge the work proposal or bid that the Petitioner's company may have presented to 
thel I Plant Maintenance Manager. However, the document features font and spacing 
inconsistencies, an email address ending in "@rgmail.com" rather than "@gmail.com," and words in a 
language other than English. Based upon these inconsistencies, we question whether this document 
represents a genuine proposal. Even if the Petitioner established that this is a genuine proposal and that 
thel !Plant Maintenance Manager has hired the Petitioner's company for services, this would 
not evidence the national importance of the proposed endeavor, but rather, would pertain to the second 
Dhanasar prong. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening the proceedings. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner's motion to reconsider has not shown that our prior decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy, and the evidence provided in support of 
the motion to reopen does not overcome the grounds underlying our prior decision. Therefore, the 
combined motion to reopen and reconsider will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
8