dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Health And Safety Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 08, 2025 In Re: 35366741 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a health and safety engineer, 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 national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The matter is now before us 
on appeal pursuant to 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 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. 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 U.S. 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. 
Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement 
for entry into the occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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. Matter ofDhanasar, 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, 2 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. 
Id. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree, a determination the record supports. In denying the petition, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit under the first Dhanasar prong and that he was 
well-positioned to advance it under the second prong. However, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not sufficiently demonstrated his endeavor's national importance under the first 
Dhanasar prong. 3 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he has demonstrated eligibility for the national interest waiver, 
including the national importance of his proposed endeavor. With the petition, the Petitioner detailed 
his plans to launch a business addressing workplace safety, first in Florida later in New Hampshire 
and Texas. He stated that he is an electrical, health, and safety engineer with over 13 years of 
experience developing procedures and trainings as well as performing audits on this topic. The 
Petitioner's business would provide consulting services to the construction and railroad in order to 
comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) procedures and prevent 
workplace injury and death. He asserted that his prospective clients and locations of operation were 
those with high concentrations of such incidents. The Petitioner contended that the company would 
begin with an initial investment of $120,000 and would create 27 new jobs resulting in $3 million in 
salaries and $3.8 million in tax revenue by its fifth year. In support of this contention, he cited figures 
regarding the increased revenue of the construction sector and regulations by state and federal agencies 
as an opportunity for the Petitioner's endeavor. The record includes the Petitioner's resume, a business 
1 Profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
3 The Director additionally determined that, on balance, it would not be beneficial to the United States to waive the 
requirements of a job offer. 
2 
plan, an academic evaluation, academic records, professional trammg certificates, letters of 
recommendation from colleagues and academics, professional licenses from federal and state 
authorities in Brazil, materials related to presentations by the Petitioner, web site printouts showing 
U.S. federal government job openings for safety engineers, and industry reports and articles regarding 
workplace safety and health and safety engineers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director did not give due regard to his resume, business plan, 
evidence of his work in the field, letters of recommendation, and industry reports and articles. The 
Petitioner states that his endeavor aligns with U.S. national priorities and would contribute to the 
overall well-being of the U.S. workforce by improving safety standards in high-risk industries. He 
additionally asserts that he has shown that his endeavor would address a shortage of U.S. professionals 
in his field, particularly in high-risk sectors such as construction and railroads. Further, he contends 
that his endeavor would enhance livelihoods and contribute to U.S. economic prosperity by generating 
employment and revenue in a historically under-utilized business zone in Florida. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may be 
demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Id. This impact need not be geographically national in scale 
but must demonstrate broader impact to a particular area, region, or industry. Id. 
Here, the Petitioner's reliance on the national importance of the goals his endeavor seeks to address is 
misplaced. Merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance 
of a proposed endeavor without evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of a 
petitioner's work. Id. In this case, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient relevant, probative and 
credible evidence of this impact, as required. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. He has 
not, for example, provided corroborating evidence to support his claim on appeal that his "use of 
advanced data analytics and state-of-the-art technology in safety management represents a significant 
innovation in his field." The support letters in the record discuss the Petitioner's past professional 
accomplishments rather than the potential of his proposed endeavor to impact his field more broadly, 
while the industry reports and articles discuss his field generally. In addition, although the Petitioner 
claims that his endeavor would address a shortage of professionals in his field, he did not elaborate 
precisely how he would do this, such as whether he would generate new jobs or train new 
professionals. Rather, this argument is more relevant to the Petitioner's eligibility for the instant 
petition under the third Dhanasar prong, which contemplates whether it would be beneficial to waive 
the labor certification requirement for the Petitioner individually. 4 
Next, the Petitioner renews claims that his company will generate economic activity, particularly in 
an economically distressed area. In Dhanasar, we 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. While the Petitioner detailed financial and staffing projections in his business plan, the record 
4 As discussed below, we decline to reach the Petitioner's arguments related to the third Dhanasar prong. 
3 
does not sufficiently describe the basis for these figures or how they will be realized such that they are 
sufficient to demonstrate substantial impact. 
As a general matter, it is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he is 
qualified for the benefit sought. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, 
eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. On appeal, 
the Petitioner refers to the evidence he previously submitted. 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"). In this case, the 
Petitioner has not specified how these documents establish his eligibility for the national interest 
waiver as claimed. As such, and for the reasons detailed above, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
established that his proposed endeavor in the United States will have national importance under the 
first Dhanasar prong. 5 
Because 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). 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 The Petitioner also argues that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof in denying his petition and instead 
erroneously imposed a stricter standard. However, he did not elaborate this argument or specify what improper standard 
the Director applied in his case. 
4