dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Infrastructure Project Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 24, 2024 In Re: 28786273 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an infrastructure project manager, seeks second preference immigrant classification 
(EB-2) 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 EB-2 immigrant 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 qualified 
for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had 
not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the 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 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 I&N Dec. 884 (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 the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded 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 
waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
A. Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner initially stated that his proposed endeavor is to work as an infrastructure project 
manager and "collaborate with companies, entities, and organizations in the United States to develop 
infrastructure projects." The endeavor's specific activities would include supporting companies that 
develop infrastructure improvements, analyzing and issuing recommendations for project proposals, 
monitoring each stage of the construction work, and ensuring contractors' compliance with work 
requirements specified in contracts, etc. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted revised personal statements addressing his 
endeavor more in detail and introduced a business plan. The Director determined that the Petitioner's 
inclusion of a business plan and the following language from his "Proposed Endeavor Statement" 
materially changed the proposed endeavor: 
My proposed endeavor is to build on my extensive experience and knowledge as a 
consultant and business administrator in transport infrastructure monitoring, control, 
and management of administrative processes in associated areas, to develop novel and 
unique projects set forth in and associated with the Infrastructure Act of the United 
states, with the ultimate goal of transport modernization for the mutual benefit of the 
citizenry of the country and national as a whole. 
However, we note that the Petitioner initially mentioned his plans for collaborating and consulting 
with various companies and entities to develop infrastructure projects. His more detailed statement 
regarding these plans, as well as the business plan, were a response to the Director's request for 
additional information and thus were not an attempt to change the nature of his endeavor. 2 Therefore, 
we withdraw this portion of the Director's decision as it relates to the material change of the proposed 
endeavor and will review the entire record, including the evidence submitted in response to the 
Director's RFE, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's endeavor is of national importance. 
2 Our decision here is based on the plain reading of the Petitioner's statements on record and is independent of the claims 
and analysis made by the Petitioner regarding Matter oflzummi, 22 l&N Dec. 169 (AAO 1998) in his appeal brief. 
2 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
Upon de novo 
review, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner demonstrated 
substantial merit but not national importance of his endeavor under the first prong of Dhanasar. On 
appeal, the Petitioner contends that he submitted "ample evidence" to demonstrate the endeavor's 
national importance without offering other new evidence. But such "ample evidence" largely consists 
of industry articles and reports discussing the state of U.S. infrastructure and costs to fix the 
infrastructure, a rising demand for professions working in the infrastructure industry, and the 
government's priorities in building a strong infrastructure. Merely working in an important field is 
insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake" and consider the endeavor's 
"potential prospective impact." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Overall, the record lacks specific and persuasive details regarding the proposed endeavor and its 
impact. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and 
that "[aa ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even 
global implications within a particular field." Id. The Petitioner asserted in his personal statements 
that he will "develop novel and unique projects set forth in and associated with the Infrastructure Act 
of the United States" and "provide novel solutions to 21 st century problems for implementation by 
companies in the areas of projects administrative management" to modernize the infrastructure in the 
United States. But the Petitioner has neither described these "novel" and "unique" projects nor 
suggested that his solutions or methodologies somehow differ from or improve upon those already 
available and in use in the United States. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that his endeavor would have national or global implications within the field. The 
Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The record also contains various recommendation letters pra1smg the Petitioner's knowledge, 
experience, and successful handling of his past projects. However, these letters do not provide details 
regarding the Petitioner's future endeavor or how it will specifically impact the infrastructure industry 
or profession. Furthermore, the Petitioner's skills, expertise, abilities, and prior accomplishments 
relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the 
specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasa 's first prong. 
In Dhanasar, we further noted 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. In the business plan, the 
Petitioner claimed that his business, ______ will be located in Texas to "help rebuild the 
America's transportation infrastructure, generate significant direct and indirect employment 
opportunities and unequivocally impact and benefit a wide range of American communities and 
citizens." However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the business plan's claimed revenue and 
employment projections, even if credible or plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the I I region or our nation. 
Although the business plan projects a revenue increase from $758,800 in year one to $1,945,000 in 
year five, and a payroll increase from $526,000 in year one to $1,361,807 in year five, it does not 
3 
sufficiently demonstrate the basis for its financial projections. The plan also claims that the business 
would create 16 staff positions by the fifth year, but the record does not demonstrate that such future 
staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits more broadly at a level commensurate 
with national importance. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserted that he intends to "work in and serve some of the economically 
distressed communities" in the greater I I area, but he did not provide persuasive details 
concerning the impact his business will have on these communities. The Petitioner, for instance, did 
not show that the projected employment figures would utilize a significant population of workers or 
would substantially impact job creation and economic growth in the disadvantaged area. The 
Petitioner offers only generalized statements about the I I area being economically depressed 
and has not supported his claims of the endeavor's specific impact to the economically disadvantaged 
areas independent of his business plan. Again, the Petitioner has not supported his assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner asserts in the business plan that he "will induce positive spillovers into the U.S. society 
by helping improve and modernize the critical infrastructure that millions of Americans use on a daily 
basis, increasing their standard of living, and reducing the gaps between developed and less developed 
or underprivileged areas in the U.S." We acknowledge that any offer of goods or services has the 
potential to impact the economy; however, the record does not support the Petitioner's company would 
operate on such a large scale that would benefit the U.S. economy rising to the level of national 
importance. Aside from generalized claims and statements, the Petitioner has not established that, 
beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, his proposed endeavor 
has broader implications rising to the level of having national importance or that it would offer 
substantial positive economic effects. 
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Petitioner did not establish national importance of the 
proposed endeavor and does not meet the first prong of Dhanasar. Therefore, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting 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 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that 
he has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate 
basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4