dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Facility Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 18, 2024 In Re: 31281724 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a facility 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 that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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. 
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. 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then 
establish 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 l&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 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 determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The first Dhanasar 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with the Director's 
conclusion that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit as it falls within the range of areas of 
substantial merit, namely business. Id. However, while the Petitioner has established that the 
proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not establish its national importance. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner intended to work in the United States as a facility manager. In 
the initial filing, the Petitioner submitted a professional plan indicating his intent to use his "extensive 
experience in [ t]acilities [ m ]anagement ([s ]oft [ s ]ervices ), [ m ]aintenance ([h Jard [ s ]ervices) and [ f]ood 
[s]ervices by developing and implementing successful commercial projects in these areas." According 
to the Petitioner, his work would "benefit the United States by providing new business solutions, 
creating innovative products, promoting efficiency, reducing costs, increasing profitability, generating 
innovation, and enabling business growth." The Petitioner intended to "employ [his] facilities 
management comprehensive knowledge to continuously seek, identify and implement innovative 
solutions and tools for the benefit of companies." In asserting the national importance of his work, he 
emphasized several of his past projects, including implementing QR code technology to monitor 
facility activities through a dashboard and his coordination of the simultaneous sanitization of four 
corporate facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic to avoid disrnpting the operations of Brazil's 
largest private organization. Ultimately, the Petitioner asserted his endeavor would broadly impact 
the facility management industry and the U.S. economy by enhancing profitability, increasing 
customer portfolios for U.S. companies, and enabling business growth. In support of his endeavor, 
the Petitioner also provided an expert opinion letter and multiple letters of recommendation. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) requesting clarification on the substantive 
nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the Petitioner submitted a new professional plan, stating 
that he intended to develop "[t]echnical and [c]ommercial [p]roposal[s], including [p]rojects with the 
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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
highest productivity, technology and innovation in equipment and systems, aiming at saving water 
consumption, saving energy consumption, [ and] reducing carbon emissions, among other 
environmental impacts that can bring substantial impact to the regional and national economy." In 
doing so, he planned to emphasize "sustainable facilities that deliver safe, healthy work 
environments," and "focus [his] activities on introducing innovative methodologies capable of 
improving processes around how companies delivery their services and products by projecting and 
maintaining sustainable facilities." Again, the Petitioner relied on his past projects as examples of the 
type of work he could perform, asserting his endeavor would involve the elaboration and execution of 
projects that significantly reduce water usage in the cleaning process, reduce organic waste from 
restaurant operations, and the implementation of mechanized cleaning of floors, among other 
innovations to improve operations. Given the various processes that facility managers coordinate, the 
Petitioner claimed that his endeavor would result in numerous benefits to businesses, including 
reduction of operational costs, improvement of organizational culture, enhancement of security and 
preparedness, asset management, space optimization, and a reduction in downtime. 
The Director concluded that the record did not demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor because the Petitioner did not show his endeavor would lead to broader 
implications to the field of facility management, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or 
otherwise result in substantial positive economic effects as contemplated in Dhanasar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims the decision "contains numerous erroneous conclusions of both law 
and fact," and generally asserts that the Director erred in their conclusions regarding the limited impact 
of his endeavor. Yet, beyond expressing his general disagreement with the Director's conclusions, 
the Petitioner does not identify with specificity how the Director erred in their analysis. Instead, the 
Petitioner reasserts the same contentions, directly copying and pasting significant excerpts from his 
RFE response on appeal. An appeal must specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). The absence of this alone 
is grounds for dismissal. Id. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed below, and upon our de novo 
review, we agree with the Director that the record does not establish, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance. 
In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We 
therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting that"[ a ]n undertaking may 
have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a 
particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
In contesting the Director's conclusion regarding the limited implications of his proposed endeavor, 
the Petitioner asserts that "[f]irst and foremost, [he] possesses an extensive academic background and 
professional experience as a [t]acility [m]anager, making him exceptionally qualified in this field." 
But this misapplies the Dhanasar framework. While it is true that a petitioner's expertise and record 
of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, the second prong 
does not evaluate the prospective impact of an endeavor, but instead "shifts the focus from the 
3 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. As such, while a Petitioner's background may be 
helpful in describing the nature of their field and prior work, it is not sufficient to establish the national 
importance of their proposed endeavor. Likewise, the Petitioner's reliance on his prior projects does 
not establish the broader implications of his proposed endeavor as he has not shown how these projects 
resulted ( or could result) in broader implications to the field beyond the benefits realized by his former 
employers and customers. 
And although the Petitioner's statements in the record reflect his intention to "contribute to the overall 
sustainability of businesses, leading to cost savings and ... [a] reduc[tion of] the negative impact of 
waste disposal," he has not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
positive impact he may have on the business operations of his prospective employer( s) or customers 
would rise to the level of national importance. For example, the Petitioner asserts that his work as a 
facility manager will "optimize facility management processes, resulting in higher productivity, better 
ergonomics, and reduced resource consumption, [ which will] not only contribute to environmental 
sustainability but also improved the overall efficiency and cost-effectiveness of building operations." 
However, he does not provide further explanation regarding how these benefits, even if realized, would 
have broader implications to the field. While he states his intent to "develop technical and commercial 
proposals" that would result in cost savings and sustainable practices, he does not provide an 
explanation as to the specific nature of these projects to allow for a determination of their impact to 
the field. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have 
little probative value. See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990)(holding 
that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). In 
Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Dhanasar at 893. Here 
too, we agree with the Director that the record does not show the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands 
to sufficiently impact the facility management field more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance. 
Moreover, while the Petitioner's intent to utilize sustainable methodologies, including reducing water 
usage in the cleaning process, saving energy, and reducing gas emissions in his work may be admirable 
and align with federal initiatives aimed at promoting sustainable facility management, it does not 
establish that his work would rise to the level of national importance contemplated in Dhanasar. The 
Petitioner has not shown with sufficient evidence how these methodologies will impact the industry 
beyond the operations of his immediate employer(s) or customers. 
The record also does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor "has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area." Id. at 890. Notably, in asserting the economic impact of his endeavor, the Petitioner 
relies primarily on the economic impact of the facility management industry, stating "the [f]acility 
[m]anagement [m]arket ... is expected to reach USD 1505.6 billion in 2027." But absent broad 
statements that his endeavor will result in substantial positive economic effects by "creating new jobs 
and providing opportunities for training and career development," the Petitioner has not provided 
projected employment numbers, nor explained with specificity what "opportunities for training and 
career development" his endeavor will create. Although any basic economic activity which may result 
from the Petitioner's work has the potential to positively impact a local economy, the Petitioner has 
not provided a sufficient explanation of the prospective impact directly attributable to his proposed 
4 
work, or established how his endeavor will impact an economically depressed area. A petitioner must 
support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 376. 
Finally, we reviewed the expert opinion letters from Dr. V-L- and Dr. M-E- and conclude that they 
provide little probative value in establishing the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor. 
While Dr. V-L- concludes that the Petitioner would "work in an area" of national importance, they did 
not elaborate on how the benefits of his specific work would extend beyond the Petitioner's immediate 
employer(s) or customers, nor did they provide justification for their conclusion that the proposed 
endeavor will have broad implications to the field. Moreover, both expert opinion letters rely primarily 
on the importance of the facility management industry to establish the national importance of the 
endeavor. For example, Dr. M-E- opines that, "[e]ffective facility management cannot only realize 
cost savings through creating efficiencies ... but it also has a positive impact on workforce safety and 
experience resulting" [and] "investing in and managing sustainable facilities has a net positive impact 
on the economy." Yet while Dr. M-E- addresses the Petitioner's past projects and successes, he does 
not elaborate on how the Petitioner's specific endeavor will offer "national or even global 
implications," to these industries. Id. at 889. 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'l, 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 of letters 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). 
Here, much of the content of the expert opinion letters lacks relevance with respect to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); 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 an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5