dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Industrial Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 12, 2024 In Re: 30627808 
Appeal of Texas Service Center 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. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional but did not establish 
that a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, would be in 
the national interest. 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 l&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. 
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 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 matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The record supports this determination. The Petitioner provided evidence that he 
attained the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree in industrial engineering followed by more than 
five years of progressive experience in this field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "advanced 
degree"). The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established that a discretionary waiver of the 
job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner is an industrial engineer with approximately 15 years of technical and commercial 
management experience in the concrete manufacturing industry in Brazil, most recently as the 
managing partner of a company that manufactures prefabricated, steel-enforced concrete pipes for 
infrastructure projects. 
In a business plan provided in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
indicated his intent to own and operate a Florida-based company and describes the proposed endeavor 
as follows: 
[The Petitioner's company] is a Florida-based enterprise that will be engaged in the 
manufacturing and wholesaling of drainage flooring (pavers) in pressed/vibrated 
concrete, in gray color with normal cement and white color with white cement. These 
blocks, thermic, drainage and anti-slip, are intended to be used mostly around 
swimming pools and in gardens. [The company] will offer its products to Swimming 
Pool Builders and Landscape Design Companies .... The Company will operate in 
2I I which is close to cement mills and stone and sand suppliers .... 
The business plan discusses the advantages of the company's products, the market for such products 
in Florida, the concrete pipe and block manufacturing industry in the United States, the company's 
staffing and financial projections for its first five years of operation, and the anticipated economic and 
industry-related impacts of the proposed endeavor. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor 
and that he is well-positioned to advance it. However, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not 
meet his burden to demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor, and that, on balance, 
it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement as a matter of discretion. 
2 At the time of filing, the Petitioner did not indicate his intent to operate a manufacturing company in the United States, 
although the record shows his company was established in Florida in 2019. Rather, in his initial professional plan, he 
stated that he intended to work with American companies that manufacture equipment in the United States and assist them 
in opening sales channels to Brazil to increase exports. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the evidence of record is sufficient to demonstrate that he 
meets all three prongs of the Dhanasar framework and otherwise merits a discretionary waiver of the 
job offer requirement in the national interest. 
For the reasons provided below, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not 
establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor and therefore did not meet his burden to 
establish that he is eligible for the requested national interest waiver. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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 submitted media and industry articles and reports that discuss the industrial engineering 
occupation, the increasing market demand for industrial engineers, shortages of qualified workers in 
engineering occupations, the manufacturing and construction industries in the United States, and the 
important contributions of immigrant entrepreneurs to the U.S. economy. Based on this and other 
relevant evidence, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
to own and operate a concrete paver manufacturing company in the United States has substantial merit 
in one or more areas identified in Dhanasar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence the Director deemed sufficient to demonstrate the 
substantial merit of his proposed endeavor also establishes its national importance, emphasizing an 
apparent "contradiction" in the Director's decision. However, in determining national importance, the 
relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will 
work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. A petitioner may present a proposed endeavor that focuses on an 
area with significant merit, but still fall short of demonstrating that their specific endeavor has a 
potential prospective impact in that area that meets the first prong's national importance element. 
Therefore, the Petitioner's claim that the Director's decision contains contradictory findings with 
respect to Dhanasar' s first prong is unpersuasive. 
In Dhanasar, we emphasized that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and 
that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even 
global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." 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. As noted by the Director in the RFE, USCIS will also consider whether a 
petitioner demonstrated that their proposed endeavor will broadly enhance societal welfare and 
whether it impacts a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or 
is the subject of national initiatives. 
3 
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's claim that his endeavor would have broader implications 
for his field by supporting and contributing to the construction and manufacturing sectors in the United 
States. We note the Petitioner also indicated in his business plan that he will "support the global green 
movement" by making eco-friendly and sustainable products that protect the natural environment, as 
well as "transfer and disseminate his own valuable skills and industry-applicable knowledge to the 
U.S. market" and thus "help create a highly qualified domestic workforce." He further stated that his 
work will "strengthen the STEM field" and claimed "his planned work [will prove] critical to the 
country's innovation." The Director concluded, however, that the evidence did not establish how the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to 
impact his field or industry more broadly, such that it would have "national or even global 
implications" within the field. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes the ecological features of the low-maintenance concrete drainage 
pavers he intends to produce and market in the United States and the need for such products in Florida 
and other regions that have a high concentration of swimming pools and/or similar susceptibility to 
flooding. He emphasizes that his proposed endeavor will "introduce a stellar product for the U.S. 
market, while also bringing profound innovation into the building materials industry." He similarly 
claims that the product will be "unique to the U.S. market and provide a revolutionary solution to an 
enormous regional and national problem" asserting that the U.S. market demands "uniquely designed, 
well-engineered building materials suited to adverse weather events." Based on these statements, the 
Petitioner appears to claim that his endeavor will introduce innovations to his industry comparable to 
the "improved manufacturing processes" mentioned in Dhanasar. Id. at 889. 
However, the record does not offer adequate support for the Petitioner's claims that his company will 
offer a "revolutionary solution," a "profound innovation" or a unique product to the U.S. market by 
manufacturing permeable concrete pavers. For example, his business plan states that many local 
governments in the United States already offer tax incentives and other benefits "to encourage the use 
of permeable pavers as a sustainable best management practice." The business plan also includes 
direct quotations from and links to the websites of other U.S.-based companies that produce and sell 
permeable pavers for use in swimming pool decks, gardens, and other hardscaping projects, and states 
that concrete pavers are "the most popular and cost-effective paving material" for these applications. 
This evidence undermines the Petitioner's claim that he is launching a new or unique concrete paving 
product. Further, even if the record supported the Petitioner's claim that he offers an innovative 
solution, he has not described any plans to disseminate his knowledge beyond training his own future 
staff His assertion that his operation of a small business in Florida will "help create a highly qualified 
domestic workforce" in this sector is not sufficiently supported by the record. 
The information in the business plan describes the qualities, advantages, and potential uses for 
permeable concrete paving products, and supports the Petitioner's claim that there is a market for such 
products in the United States, and particularly in Florida. It also highlights the Petitioner's technical 
and management skills and his success in a different segment of the concrete manufacturing industry 
in Brazil. However, for the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not substantiated his claim that his 
company's product offerings will introduce new manufacturing processes or other innovations to this 
segment of the U.S. concrete manufacturing industry, or that his proposed endeavor has other broader 
implications in his field. 
4 
The Petitioner also maintains that his proposed endeavor will have direct benefits for the U.S. economy 
based on its projected sales revenue, tax contributions, and its direct and indirect creation ofjobs. The 
Director discussed the staffing and financial projections provided in the Petitioner's business plan but 
concluded that the record did establish that the Petitioner's company has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects commensurate with 
Dhanasar's national importance requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his business plan "extensively and effectively demonstrated 
how his company will contribute significant job growth, tax revenue and overall benefit to the Florida 
and U.S. economy." He states that the employment, tax and revenue figures provided in the business 
plan "will support the U.S. economy incrementally and positively - which is sufficient to determine 
his proposed endeavor has positive prospective economic effects for the U.S. economy and sufficient 
to meet the threshold set forth by the Dhanasar analysis." 
The Petitioner's business plan includes five-year projections, indicating that by year five the company 
would have 29 employees, pay $971,513 in payroll expenses, generate $2.3 7 million in gross revenue, 
and pay over $214,000 in taxes. The plan does not, however, provide sufficient details regarding the 
basis for these projections, or adequately explain how these staffing and sales targets will be realized. 
The Petitioner's business plan also incorporates a brief Regional Input-Output Modeling System 
(RIMS II) analysis, which relies on industry multipliers to predict the company's potential impact on 
the region in which it intends to operate. According to the business plan, the multipliers for the 
Concrete Pipe, Brick and Manufacturing industry in Florida indicate that the Petitioner's company 
will generate "effects on employment equivalent to 88 years in Year 5" and "effects on household 
earnings equivalent to $2,336,013 in Year 5" based on the company's anticipated staffing and payroll. 
However, the business plan does not further elaborate these claims of indirect job creation and is not 
supported by any independent evidence from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which publishes the 
RIMS II multipliers. 
Regardless, even if the sales and employment projections and calculations in the business plan were 
adequately substantiated, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has the 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers, that it will operate in an economically depressed area, or 
that it would otherwise reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by 
Dhanasar. See 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor will significantly 
impact the manufacturing industry and "contribute to the expansion of the overall sector." While the 
revenues and employment opportunities generated by any entrepreneurial endeavor have the potential 
to positively impact the economy on some level, it is the Petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the 
potential positive economic effects of his specific endeavor will be "substantial." The record reflects 
that the U.S. manufacturing industry employed over 12.1 million workers in 2020 and generated 
revenue of over $2.3 trillion in 2019. The Petitioner has not established that the creation of 29 
additional jobs and generation of over $2 million in revenue in this sector reaches that threshold. 
Overall, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed endeavor would offer a 
region or its population a substantial direct economic benefit through employment levels, business 
activity, or related tax revenue, or associated indirect economic benefits, at a level commensurate with 
the national importance element of Dhanasar' s first prong. 
5 
The Petitioner also asserts in his business plan that his proposed endeavor will have national 
importance by "strengthening the STEM field." The business plan cites statistics on the importance 
of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workers to the country's innovation, 
and the increasing number of foreign-born STEM workers, and their contributions to the U.S. 
economy. The business plan states that the Petitioner, as a skilled industrial engineer, "will play an 
increasingly important role in the U.S. economy at large, with his planned work proving critical to the 
country's innovation, while also serving to meet forecast demand for STEM workers nationwide." 
USCIS recognizes the importance of progress in STEM fields and the essential role of persons with 
advanced STEM degrees in fostering this progress, especially in focused critical and emerging 
technologies, or other STEM areas important to U.S. competitiveness or national security. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Many proposed 
endeavors that aim to advance STEM technologies and research, whether in academic or industry 
settings, not only have substantial merit in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, but also 
have sufficiently broad potential implications to demonstrate national importance. Id. However, the 
fact that a petitioner's academic qualifications or proposed endeavor fall within a STEM field does 
not automatically demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver. Rather, the specific proposed 
STEM endeavor must have both substantial merit and national importance with respect to the first 
prong of Dhanasar. 
Here, while the Petitioner emphasizes his background in engineering, he has not indicated how his 
proposed endeavor will "aim to advance STEM technologies and research" or otherwise have 
sufficiently broad potential implications to demonstrate national importance. As discussed above, the 
record does not adequately support the Petitioner's claims that he will be introducing product 
advancements in his field, disseminating innovative manufacturing processes or techniques, nor does 
it otherwise support his claims that the proposed endeavor will be "critical to the country's 
innovation." Further, it is unclear how his proposed endeavor, which intends to employ 29 forklift 
operators, flooring machine operators and helpers, concrete mixer operators, packaging and loading 
helpers, and sales representatives in Florida, will "meet forecast demand for STEM workers 
nationwide." For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor based on its alignment with one or more STEM fields. 
To further illustrate the potential impact of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner points to his past 
employment experience and qualifications as an industrial engineer and business owner in the concrete 
manufacturing industry. We have reviewed his resume, personal statements, and letters of 
recommendation from employers and colleagues. While the authors of these letters express their high 
opinion of the Petitioner and his prior work in the field, they do not discuss his specific proposed 
endeavor in the United States or explain why it has national importance. As such, the letters are not 
probative of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar. Furthermore, we note that 
the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar's 
second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 26 I&N 
Dec at 890. The issue under the first prong is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national 
importance of his proposed work. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter from an engineering 
professor at the ____________ who evaluated his eligibility under the three 
6 
prongs of the Dhanasar framework. In addressing Dhanasar's first prong, the author significantly 
focuses on the U.S. market's growing demand for industrial engineers, the importance of the 
manufacturing sector as a driver of the United States economy, and the importance of trade relations 
between the United States and Brazil. While the professor indicates that the United States would 
benefit from the Petitioner's expertise and skills as an engineer and his experience in manufacturing, 
he does not sufficiently address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, its prospective substantial 
economic impact, or any broader implications of the Petitioner's work in the field. In fact, the author 
indicates that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will involve assisting U.S. companies seeking market 
opportunities and investments in the manufacturing sector in Brazil, which is not the proposed 
endeavor described in the Petitioner's business plan. 
We observe that 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 foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter of 
D-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 letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. 
For the reasons provided above, the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the 
national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of Dhanasar. 
Accordingly, the record does not establish that he merits, as a matter of discretion, the requested 
national interest waiver. 
B. Reserved Issue 
Our decision regarding the proposed endeavor's national importance resolves this appeal. 
Accordingly, we need not reach, and thus reserve, the Petitioner's appellate arguments relating to 
Dhanasar 's third prong. 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 ofL-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). 
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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7