dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Engineering / Drone Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 30, 2023 In Re: 28962854 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an engineer and drone operator, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached 
to this EB-2 classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor 
certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 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 l&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. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A United States 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. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, the petitioner must then establish eligibility for a 
discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of 
the Act. While neither statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter 
of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional, based upon obtaining the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree in electronics 
engineering and at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. The Director also found 
that the Petitioner established the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor and that he is well­
positioned to advance it. However, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 2 On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief in which 
he asserts that he has established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner proposes to promote and develop novel methods for the use of industrial drones in 
practical commercial applications. The Petitioner states that to pursue this endeavor he will work as 
a consultant to promote drones for such purposes as site surveying and topography, the generation of 
contour maps in construction and mining, obtaining real crop data in agriculture, medical purposes in 
delivering supplies, and telecommunications. 
In determining that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor, 
the Director discussed the Petitioner's personal statement, reference letters, and the documents 
submitted regarding the drone industry. The Director found that the Petitioner's personal statement 
and evidence of his employment history did not establish that the impact of the Petitioner's endeavor 
would reach beyond the Petitioner's employer or clients to the broader field. Similarly, the Director 
concluded that the reference letters, although they describe the Petitioner as competent and capable, 
did not establish that the proposed endeavor would extend beyond the Petitioner and his employer. 
The Director also concluded that the documents regarding the drone industry and its effect on the 
economy help establish the importance of the industry, but not of the proposed endeavor itself: as 
required by Matter ofDhanasar. Overall, the Director concluded that although the record shows that 
the Petitioner has experience and a measure of accomplishment in his field, it did not establish the 
endeavor's national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director conflated the Petitioner's proposed employment with 
the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner also asserts that the Director did not sufficiently analyze the 
evidence or explain why the evidence is deficient. Additionally, the Petitioner claims that the Director 
did not examine the entirety of the evidence in the record; the Petitioner specifically points to the 
articles submitted and claims that these documents were overlooked by the Director. The Petitioner 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS. 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 The Director did not make a finding as to whether the Petitioner established the third Dhanasar prong-that, on balance, 
waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
2 
contends that he provided sufficient evidence and information to establish the endeavor's national 
importance by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the denial is therefore contrary to precedent 
case decisions and USCIS policy. 
As to the Petitioner's claim that the Director conflated the proposed endeavor with the proposed 
employment, the Petitioner refers to the Director's statement that the Petitioner intends to "work as a 
drone operator." The Petitioner states that the proposed employment is "merely held in furtherance of 
the proposed endeavor, not the proposed endeavor itself" The Petitioner claims that his "employment 
as a construction consultant and a licensed drone pilot should accordingly only be considered as a 
vehicle by which to achieve or otherwise further" his endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner states that 
the proposed endeavor is to "provide specialized consulting services," to "positively impact the 
construction sector," and to "promote and develop novel methods for the use of industrial drones." 
Even were we to agree with the Petitioner that there is a distinction between the endeavor and 
employment held in furtherance of the endeavor, the Petitioner has not established that this distinction 
would impact the national importance analysis in this case. In determining whether a proposed 
endeavor has national importance, we must consider its potential prospective impact. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner has not explained how we would assess the potential 
impact of this type of endeavor without considering how the Petitioner proposes to implement it. The 
Petitioner submitted personal statements, industry reports and articles, and letters of recommendation 
in support of his endeavor's national importance. The Director considered this evidence and 
determined that it did not demonstrate that the impact of the Petitioner's activities stands to extend 
beyond the Petitioner's clients or employer to impact the field on a level commensurate with national 
importance. Regardless of the language the Director used to summarize those activities, the 
Petitioner's claim that his proposed endeavor and proposed employment differ do not establish that 
the Director erred in this analysis, nor that the proposed endeavor is in fact nationally important. 
Similarly, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's claim that the denial is deficient because the 
Director did not review the entirety of the evidence in the record. The Petitioner states that the failure 
to consider all the relevant evidence submitted has been found to be an abuse of discretion and cites 
to Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1223 (E.D. Mi. 1994). While we agree with that an adjudicator 
should consider the relevant evidence in the record,3 we also note that U.S. district court decisions, 
such as the one the Petitioner cites, are not binding precedential authority. The reasoning underlying 
a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us; however, the 
analysis does not have to be followed as a matter oflaw. See Matter ofK-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719 
(BIA 1993). More importantly, however, the Petitioner does not sufficiently support the claim that 
there was relevant evidence that the Director failed to consider. 
Although the Petitioner repeats several times that there was "ample evidence" which was not 
considered by the Director, the only example the Petitioner provides of such evidence are the articles 
and reports submitted about the drone industry and the construction industry. The Petitioner 
specifically cites to two articles about the uses of drones in construction and infrastructure, an article 
from the Construction Association about the importance of the construction industry to the U.S. 
economy, a Forbes article about sustainability in the construction industry, and an executive order 
3 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
3 
regarding clean energy jobs and sustainability. The Petitioner asserts that this "objective, documentary 
evidence" establishes the proposed endeavor's national importance but was "ignored" by the Director. 
But the Director stated that the Petitioner submitted numerous documents regarding the drone industry 
and concluded that this evidence related only to the field in general and therefore did not establish the 
specific endeavor's national importance. The fact that these articles are not listed by name is not 
indicative of a failure to consider the evidence. See Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1142-43 (5th 
Cir. 1984) ("[The Board of Immigration Appeals] has no duty to write an exegesis on every 
contention."). See also Ren v. USCIS, 60 F.4th 89, 97 (4th Cir. 2023) ("[S]o long as [USCIS] has 
given reasoned consideration to the petition, and made adequate findings, we will not require that it 
address specifically each claim the petitioner made or each piece of evidence the petitioner presented." 
(cleaned up)); Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (joining the Seventh 
and the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals in presuming that the Board reviewed all of the evidence of 
record). We conclude that the record reflects the Director's consideration of the evidence in totality 
even though the Director did not address each piece of evidence individually. Therefore, we do find 
sufficient support for the Petitioner's claim that the Director failed to consider the entirety of the 
evidence in the record. 
Additionally, as the Director noted, the reports and articles that the Petitioner discusses here relate to 
drones, the construction industry, and the U.S. economy in general, not to the Petitioner's specific 
proposed endeavor. In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, the relevant 
question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; 
instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] 
proposes to undertake." See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. On appeal, the Petitioner does 
not explain how these articles and reports establish the prospective impact of his specific endeavor. 
As such, we conclude that the articles and reports do not establish that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has national importance. 
Similarly, as to the Petitioner's claim that the Director did not analyze the evidence or sufficiently 
explain the basis for denial, we conclude that this claim is not supported by the record. Rather, upon 
de novo review, we conclude that the Director's decision reviewed, discussed, and analyzed the 
Petitioner's documentation consistent with our precedent decision in Matter ofDhanasar. On appeal, 
rather than specifically identifying any errors in law or fact in the decision, the Petitioner makes broad 
assertions that the Director did not properly analyze the evidence and that he has established eligibility. 
These assertions, however, are not supported by the record, do not overcome the basis for the denial, 
and are insufficient to establish the proposed endeavor's national importance. 
Because the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second 
or third Dhanasar prongs. 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 of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where the applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the national importance requirement of the first prong of Dhanasar. We 
therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5