dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Industrial Mechanics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 20, 2024 In Re: 33031600 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an industrial machinery mechanic, 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. § l 153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, that the Petitioner is well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor, or that it would be beneficial to waive the requirements of a job offer. 
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 Christa'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. 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. 
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 (USCTS) 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; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
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. 
Id. at 889. 
The brief in response to the request for evidence (RFE) states that the Petitioner's business will focus on 
"the creation of fuel pellets from wood processing waste and the granulation of edible waste." The 
evidence provided does not demonstrate that this specific endeavor is of national importance. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 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. In Dhanasar, we further 
noted 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." 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. To evaluate 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to 
evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of his work. 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
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). 
2 
Here, the Petitioner has not described how his pellet manufacturing will have a broader impact on the 
field beyond the individual clients he intends to sell to. The Petitioner argues that his proposed work 
is nationally important because he will produce pellets at a lower cost. He further avers that fuel pellet 
production in general contributes to "sustainable resource management, waste reduction, and the 
development of a greener, more resilient energy system." Yet the Petitioner neglects to explain how 
his particular business's pellet production will impact the overall fuel pellet field at a nationally 
important level, beyond his customers. 
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate national importance either. 2 The Petitioner provided 
informational articles on fuel pellets and engineering. These articles and reports are of little 
evidentiary value as they do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or how it would 
have broad implications in the fuel pellet field in a way that implicates national importance. The 
Petitioner also presented recommendation letters and documentation on the Petitioner's current 
employer and his work there. 3 The Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national 
importance as it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments and experiences, not the specific 
endeavor's potential impact in the fuel pellet field. Generally, this type of evidence is more appropriate 
for the second prong when determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
Moreover, he has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our 
nation. An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, may have national 
importance. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Here, however, the business plan does not adequately 
support its projections of job and revenue creation. The Petitioner's business plan does not explain 
how its forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how its projections will be realized, nor does 
the record contain evidence to support the business plan's financial projections. The preponderance 
of the evidence standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is probably 
true, where the determination of truth is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual 
case. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, truth is to be determined 
not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See id. Here, the lack of supporting details 
detracts from the credibility and probative value of the business plan. 
Even if we assumed all the projections in the business plan were accurate, the record lacks evidence 
demonstrating that its impact would be nationally important. The Petitioner argues that the proposed 
endeavor will have an economic impact on the level of national importance. Yet the Petitioner did not 
provide documentation to support these statements that the company will result in substantial 
economic growth on the level of national importance. The record does not illustrate how creating 14 
jobs and generating the net profit as projected in the business plan, would have substantial positive 
economic effects on the level of national importance. The Petitioner must support assertions with 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 Following the initial petition, the Petitioner submitted supplemental evidence including an article and investor interest 
communications that originated after the petition 's filing. He also submitted other letters from potential business associates 
that were undated. A petitioner must meet all the eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 
103 .2(b )(I), ( 12). 
3 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The 
Petitioner has therefore not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the 
prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Accordingly, 
the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. 
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally 
important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond his clients to affect the region 
or nation more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. He has not shown that benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified reasons for dismissal 
are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments 
concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
( 1976) (stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of 
which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 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 find 
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. 
4