dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Maintenance Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 20, 2025 In Re: 37096444 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a maintenance engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of 
exceptional ability, 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 that the proposed endeavor is of national importance or that it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and labor certification. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&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. 
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 Petitioner claimed eligibility for the EB-2 immigrant classification as an individual of advanced 
degree and exceptional ability. However, because we conclude that he is not eligible for, and does not 
merit as a matter of discretion, a national interest waiver, and this determination is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the issue. 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); 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). 
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. Matter of 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. 
The appeal brief states that the Petitioner's business, "will provide tailored, 
eco-friendly, and energy-efficient maintenance solutions." 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 T&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 a petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to 
evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of their 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 T&N Dec. at 893. 
1 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). 
2 
Here, the Petitioner has not adequately described how his maintenance consulting company will have 
a broader impact on the field beyond his individual clients. The Petitioner argues on appeal that his 
proposed work is nationally important because the company will "transform the maintenance landscape 
by advocating for practices that enhance organizational security, reliability, compliance, and efficiency 
and significantly reduce environmental impact." Yet the brief and the record does not explain how the 
business would achieve these aims or make a nationally important impact on the field beyond their 
clients. Contentions require support to underpin them, as assertions themselves do not constitute 
evidence. See, e.g. , Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998) ("statements in a brief, motion, 
or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight"). 
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate national importance either. 2 The Petitioner provided his 
resume, personal statement, business plan, educational records, various training certificates , workplace 
awards, letters of recommendation, and engineering association documents. 
The Petitioner presented several letters of recommendation from former co-workers and his pastor. 
The majority of the letters of recommendation state that the Petitioner is a skilled engineer or detail 
specific past job performance, but they do not stipulate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will 
contribute to the maintenance engineering field on a nationally important level. We observe that a few 
of the letters do comment on the proposed endeavor and its importance. However, these statements do 
not provide explanations for how the Petitioner would have a national impact on his field. For example, 
the letter from !generally notes that the Petitioner would set new standards in the industry. 
Nevertheless, beyond this broad remark, the writer neglected to specifically illustrate how the proposed 
endeavor would achieve this or generally how it would have a national impact beyond its clients. 
The remaining evidence consists of the Petitioner's educational documents , workplace awards, 
training certificates, and engineer association cards. 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 maintenance engineering industry. 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 , the Petitioner 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 anticipates that the Petitioner's company will reach a total of 23 
employees in year five, with payroll expenses growing from $214,000 in year one to $890,285 in year 
five. He also projected generating $178,241 in net profit in year one, increasing to $232,723 in year 
five . Nonetheless, the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify 
how these projections will be realized, nor does the record contain evidence to support the business 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted , we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
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 of Chawathe, 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's appeal brief contends 
that the "economic impacts of [the Petitioner's] venture are profound." 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 23 
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 
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 Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25 (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 of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7 (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