dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Industrial Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 10, 2025 In Re: 34992974 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an industrial engineer and entrepreneur, 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 Petitioner established 
that he qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional but that he had not 
established that a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on 
combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
In our appellate decision, we agreed with the Director's decision and concluded that the Petitioner had 
not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). We concluded 
that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his endeavor would have broader implications as 
envisioned by Dhanasar. Id. at 889. We determined that the Petitioner's contention that his endeavor 
would "help to create a highly qualified domestic workforce" was not supported by the evidence in 
the record. Further, we concluded that the evidence in the record did not establish that the Petitioner's 
endeavor would offer substantial direct economic benefit through employment levels, business 
activity, related tax revenue, or associated indirect economic benefits at a level commensurate with 
the national importance under Dhanasar' s first prong. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits an updated personal statement, letters of support, and an expert 
opinion letter. The Petitioner asserts that these new facts establish eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. 
In his statement submitted on motion, the Petitioner makes broad assertions without evidence in 
support. For instance, the Petitioner states that "[b ]y actively participating in this landscape, my 
venture is essentially upholding the United States' standing as a land of opportunity, thereby 
supporting national interests." Likewise, the Petitioner foresees his endeavor providing a "significant 
contribution to the American job market." The Petitioner speaks of creating "stable, well-paying jobs 
for a diverse range of professionals." The Petitioner states that he plans to hire during his company's 
first year: one forklift operator, one flooring machine operator, one concrete mixer operator, two 
flooring machine helpers, two packaging and loading helpers, and two sales representatives. 
The Petitioner does not explain how hiring nine employees, in addition to himself as industrial 
engineer, will have national or even global implications commensurate with the standard of national 
importance. While the Petitioner does indicate his endeavor will be based in Florida on motion, he 
does not show how it will have broader implications for the region that are commensurate with national 
importance. "Certain locally or regionally focused endeavors ... may be of national importance despite 
being difficult to quantify with respect to geographic scope." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
887, 889. Yet, a petitioner must still show how the proposed endeavor will have broader implications 
for a field or region than ones that impact solely a business, its suppliers, and its customers. 
Additionally, the support letters submitted do not sufficiently demonstrate his proposed endeavor's 
national importance. For instance, the support letter from M-F-L- relates that the Petitioner has the 
ability to "drive business outcomes" and that he has "significant knowledge and expertise in the 
industrial sector of concrete pipes and rainwater galleries." 1 While the letter praises the Petitioner's 
abilities, it does not speak of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or the endeavor's potential 
prospective impact relevant to the first prong of national importance. Likewise, letters from M-K-, 
M-A-S-C-, R-G-M-, and C-Y-S-, all laud the Petitioner's achievements and abilities. What the letters 
do not provide is information on how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has a "significant potential 
to broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, or to contribute to the 
advancement of a valuable technology or field of study." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-
90, see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Instead, 
the letters predominantly relate to whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his endeavor 
under Dhanasar 's second prong. 
The Petitioner further submits an expert opm10n letter from an engmeenng professor at the 
Professor ______ Professor I I evaluated the 
Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver using the Dhanasar framework. In addressing 
prong one, Professor! Iconcludes that the Petitioner's endeavor will be a "national asset" because 
the Petitioner will run a small business and be an entrepreneur. Further, Professor I I states the 
Petitioner's endeavor will provide employment opportunities, pay taxes, and be part of the 
1 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
2 
I 
manufacturing sector which contributed $2.4 trillion to the U.S. economy in 2019. Additionally, 
Professor I I opines that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of "support[ing] the growth and 
popularity of functional paving solutions that serve drainage flooring purposes" through the 
manufacture of "high-quality concrete pavers" does not have a "negative impact on the natural 
environment." Thus, Professor I I contends that this aligns the Petitioner's endeavor with a 
national initiative regarding pollution control in the manufacturing sector. Finally, Professor I 
argues that the Petitioner's endeavor related to drainage issues will broadly enhance individual and 
societal welfare by facilitating swimming in pools, landscaped gardens, and drainage. 
We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinions statements 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 an individual's eligibility. 
Professor I I letter does not address factors or explain how the Petitioner's endeavor would be 
of national importance to meet Dhanasar 's first prong. Instead, the letter recites general industry 
information, national initiatives, and the Petitioner's skills, which go to Dhanasar 's second prong. 
Thus, the letter is of minimal probative value. 
Because the Petitioner has not provided new facts such that demonstrate his proposed endeavor's 
national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong, we conclude that the requirements for a motion to 
reopen have not been met. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. Upon review of the legal brief 
provided by counsel on motion, we are unable to determine whether the Petitioner desires to challenge 
the correctness of our appellate decision or of the Director's underlying decision. For instance, the 
Petitioner states that "[ww ]e sincerely expect the AAO to revisit the USCIS' [sic] decision and correct 
this erroneous decision." 2 The Petitioner contends that "USCIS officers may not unilaterally impose 
novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations" citing to Love 
Koren Church v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 749, 758 (9th Cir. 2008). Likewise, the Petitioner urges that the 
adjudicative standard for his petition is preponderance of the evidence and cites to various decisions 
including Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 83 (BIA 1989). 
However, we find the Petitioner's arguments unavailing. The Petitioner does not illustrate how we 
erred in our application of the decisions he cites. The Petitioner correctly indicates that the standard 
of proof in this matter is preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-
76 (AAO 2010). While we agree that the preponderance of the evidence standard controls, the 
Petitioner's burden of proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well as the ultimate 
burden of persuasion. See Matter of Y-B-, 21 T&N Dec. at 1149 n.3 (BIA 1998). We find that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how we erroneously applied the standard of proof or how we 
2 We note this sentence, and much of the legal argument that follows, appears verbatim in the Petitioner's brief on appeal. 
3 
introduced novel substantive or evidentiary requirements. Further, the Petitioner's arguments on 
motion merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decision. See e.g., 
Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("a motion to reconsider is not a process by which 
a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by 
generally alleging error in the prior Board decision"). 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established 
that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued 
our decision. Therefore, the motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4