dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Facilities Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 10, 2024 In Re: 34851022 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a facilities manager, 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 the Petitioner qualified for 
EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but had not established 
that 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. 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. 
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. While neither the 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 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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 individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
The Petitioner proposed to elevate her "career within Facilities and Project Management" by either 
"serving within American organizations or as an independent consultant." The Petitioner stated her 
work "will have profound implications in enhancing safety protocols and refining internal operations 
procedures" as well as "promote the physical and mental well-being of the workforce, fostering an 
environment of inclusivity and accessibility for individuals with disabilities." The Petitioner also 
stated her "initiative will create new job positions and enhance tax revenue." 
The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was of substantial merit, and we agree. 
However, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor had 
national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director "erred in applying a stricter standard of proof than the 
"preponderance of the evidence"" when analyzing the evidence by "not properly considering key 
documents on the record." Specifically, the Petitioner notes she provided professional plans, personal 
statements, letters of recommendation, and an expert opinion letter in support of national importance. 
However, the Petitioner contends that "USCIS either partially overlooked the evidence on record 
and/or went beyond the proper standard of review - The Preponderance of the Evidence." The 
Petitioner further states that "failure to discuss all elements of the evidence submitted with the initial 
petition and [request for evidence (RFE)] response served to the direct disadvantage of" the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner cites to Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1233 (E.D. Mich. 1994) to support his 
assertion that he was disadvantage because the Director did not discuss all the evidence present in the 
record. But the Buletini court opinion referred to the Director's failure to consider forms of evidence 
that the petitioner in that case submitted such as the book and the medical dictionary he authored, and 
his study that appeared in the largest circulation newspaper in that petitioner's home nation. Buletini, 
860 F. Supp. at 1232-33. The Buletini court did not indicate that the director was required to discuss 
each and every piece of evidence within the record. 
The first 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. 
The Petitioner provided a professional plan and a personal statement with the initial petition, as well 
as an amended professional plan and statement in response to the Director's RFE. On appeal, the 
Petitioner provides a second amended professional plan and statement. Upon de novo review, we note 
that the various editions of the Petitioner's professional plans and statements submitted into the record 
primarily highlight her academic credentials and years of professional work experience in facilities 
and project management. But the Petitioner's academic credentials and professional experience are 
considerations under Dhanasar' s second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor 
2 
I 
to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, the national importance of her proposed work. 
The Petitioner asserts that "[h]er initiatives will make significant contributions to the U.S. economy 
through improved corporate practices, enhanced sustainability, better employee well-being, and 
increased real estate values" and that "[h]er commitment to community involvement and local job 
creation further highlights the broad impact of her proposed work, aligning her professional goals with 
broader national objectives of economic growth, environmental sustainability, and social 
development." The Petitioner also asserts in her amended professional plan and statement that she 
will provide her services to over eight thousand employees in the next five years and, thus, "further 
contributing to businesses and the U.S. economy." It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national 
importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims. 
Whilst any basic economic activity has the potential to positively affect the economy to some degree, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the asserted potential prospective impact of her proposed 
endeavor stands to have national, or even global, impact to her field or offer broader implications, or 
generate substantial positive economic effects. The Petitioner has not sufficiently described their 
proposed endeavor beyond the sphere of individuals or entities seeking out their services. This is akin 
to teaching which we determined in Dhanasar did not rise to a level of having national importance. 
Id. at 893. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond her future customers and employer(s) to impact her field of facilities and 
project management, the economy, or U.S. societal welfare more broadly at a level commensurate 
with national importance. So, the Petitioner has not provided evidence demonstrating that her 
proposed endeavor would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance. 
The Petitioner provided an expert opinion letter from an associate professor of marketing at 
I The associate professor opines that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is nationally 
important due to the facilities management and construction project management industries' 
significance to the U.S. economy and the demand for facilities and construction managers in the 
country. The associate professor, however, does not address the Petitioner's professional plans, the 
specific proposed endeavor described therein, its prospective substantial economic impact, or any 
broader implications of the Petitioner's intended facilities management services. USCIS may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional organizations, or other 
sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding a noncitizen's eligibility. The submission ofletters from experts supporting the petition is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 
2011) ( discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, 
reliability, and the overall probative value). 
The authors of the letters of recommendation the Petitioner submitted praise her abilities in the 
facilities management industry and her personal attributes, indicating that she would be an asserted 
asset to the workplace. However, the letters of recommendation do not offer persuasive detail 
concerning the impact of her proposed endeavor and how it would extend beyond her employer(s) and 
clients. As such, the letters are not material, relevant, or probative to an evaluation of the Petitioner's 
eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar. 
3 
Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we 
need not address her eligibility under the remaining prongs, and we hereby reserve them. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. The burden of proof 
is on the Petitioner to establish that she meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. The Petitioner has not 
done so here and, therefore, we conclude that she has not established eligibility for a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4