dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 10, 2024 In Re: 31108845 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer/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 record did not 
establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has 
national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance requirement of the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Because this 
identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
1reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar prongs. 
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. Next, a 
petitioner 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 l&N Dec. at 889, provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
1 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion,2 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. 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner, amechanical engineer/entrepreneur, states that he has more than 10 years of experience 
in "industrial maintenance with significant presence in the beverage and automotive industries."3 His 
proposed endeavor is to expand his craft beer company "which is to specialize as a microbrewery" 
producing 5,000 liters per month in I I New Jersey. Additionally, the Petitioner states that his 
"overall proposed endeavor. . .is to offer [his] expertise to expand [his] business operations in the 
United States" and "continue contributing to building wealth within the economy with [his] 
investments." 
With the initial filing, the Petitioner submitted evidence of his education and experience, "a 
professional plan & statement" describing his proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a national 
interest waiver, a letter from counsel, a business plan, recommendation/employment letters, an expert 
opinion letter, and industry reports and articles. 
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish his eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. The Petitioner's response included a letter from counsel, resubmission of evidence, evidence 
of his education and employment, articles, and letters of recommendation. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not met 
any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Concerning the Petitioner's eligibility 
under Dhanasar 's first prong, the Director determined that the evidence did not establish that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit or national importance.4 The Director further 
determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated his eligibility for a national waiver under the 
second or third prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
2 See also 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 USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
3 We note that the Petitioner, in his professional plan and statement, states both that he has more than 10 years of experience 
in industrial maintenance and that he has more than "8 years of experience as a Mechanical Engineer in constrnction, 
automotive, and beverage industries." The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
4 Because we resolve this appeal on the national importance component of Dhanasar's first prong, we do not address the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the other prongs. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director "did not apply the proper standard 
of proof. . .instead imposing a stricter standard." Further, the Petitioner contends that the Director 
"erroneously applied the law." Lastly, the Petitioner argues that the Director did not give "due regard 
to various pieces of evidence including his resume, business plan, "[e]vidence of the [Petitioner's] 
work in the field," recommendation letters, and industry reports and articles. 
Regarding the Petitioner's contention that the Director failed to apply the proper standard of proof, we 
disagree. Although the evidentiary standard in immigration proceedings is the preponderance of the 
evidence standard, the burden is on the Petitioner alone to provide material, relevant, and probative 
evidence to meet that standard. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. A petitioner's burden of 
proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well as the ultimate burden of persuasion. 
Matter of Y-B-, 21 l&N Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 {BIA 1998); also see the definition of burden of proof 
from Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (reflecting the burden of proof includes both the burden 
of production and the burden of persuasion). The Director correctly states that the Petitioner must 
demonstrate that he is eligible for a national interest waiver by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76. Moreover, the Petitioner does not analyze how the 
Director failed to properly consider the evidence in the record. For instance, the Director specifically 
mentions the Petitioner's statement, recommendation letters, evidence of the Petitioner's work in the 
field, and articles in her decision. 5 
As to the national importance component of Dhanasar 's first prong, we consider the proposed 
endeavor's potential prospective impact in determining whether it has national importance. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 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 Id. 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. 
The Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor, opening a microbrewery in New Jersey, "will 
seek to promote and protect small and independent brewers in the United States." Further, the 
Petitioner states he will "focus on designing and optimizing brewing equipment, analyzing, and [sic] 
optimizing brewing equipment, and promoting environmental sustainability within the microbrewery 
industry." 
The Petitioner has not introduced evidence that demonstrates that his proposed endeavor would have 
substantial positive economic effects. In his appeal brief, the Petitioner states, through counsel, that a 
"key aspect of this endeavor is the development and implementation of environmentally sustainable 
practices within the microbrewery industry." As such, the Petitioner will "explore the integration of 
renewable energy sources, such as solar or wind power, into brewing operations." In addition, the 
3 
5 The Director stated "USCIS examines each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." 
Petitioner will "promote recycling initiatives and waste management strategies to mm1m1ze 
environmental impact and promote sustainability." However, these arguments were absent from the 
materials filed before the RFE was issued. In fact, we only locate assertions made about environmental 
sustainability and renewable energy in counsel's RFE response letter. Further, in a letter from the 
Petitioner's employer, a utility and heavy construction firm, we find no mention of his proposed 
endeavor or of any planned efforts for it to be environmentally sustainable or renewable energy 
friendly. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that "he relied on [a] US government database from [the] Small 
Business Administration - SBA HUBZone" to determine the location of his company. 6 He states that 
his decision "arose from the desire to take a stand and create a positive impact, generating jobs for US 
workers in underutilized areas in the state [sic] ofl IThe Petitioner contends that his company 
will also "improv[ e] the wages and working conditions for US workers, help[] the local community to 
attract investments in the region, and thus encourage[e] economic development." However, the 
Petitioner's "Professional Plan & Statement" does not mention the SBA's HUBZone program, nor 
does his business plan. Further, the Petitioner does not state, and the evidence in the record does not 
indicate, that his business will be a participant in the HUBZone program. The record does not contain 
other evidence that demonstrates his proposed endeavor will benefit underserved communities. Thus, 
we are unable to conclude that his endeavor will have substantial positive effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area, to reach the level of national importance. 
Likewise, the industry reports and articles submitted by the Petitioner do not show how his proposed 
endeavor is of national importance.7 The articles are general in nature and do not involve the Petitioner 
or his proposed endeavor. An article from the Center for Immigration Studies, submitted by the 
Petitioner, questions whether continued immigration to the United States is maintainable considering 
the "record numbers" of immigrants. An industry report titled "Mechanical Engineering Careers," by 
lmed Bouchrika, states that "[m]echanical engineering is critical to the design, manufacture, and 
operation of small and large mechanical systems that propel economies." However, the report does 
not mention the Petitioner or his proposed endeavor or that there is substantial demand for the 
development of microbreweries. In another report by IBISWorld, "Engineering Services in the US," 
we learn that engineering services "revenue is expected to grow an annualized 2.0% to $360.9 billion 
"over the five years to 2027." While those projections may be accurate, the report does not 
demonstrate how the Petitioner's endeavor will be part of that growth. 
Professor I I of authored a letter in support of the 
Petitioner's case. We acknowledge that the expert opinion letter includes a purported analysis of the 
national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Professor I I asse1is that "as a 
seasoned Mechanical Engineer who possesses an intimate knowledge of the Mechanical Engineering 
industry in Brazil, there is no doubt that his [sic] would work in the United States in an area of 
substantial merit and national impmiance." 8 Further, Professor I !provides information about 
6 According to the Small Business Administration's website, "[t]he HUBZone program fuels small business growth in 
historically underutilized business zones with a goal of awarding at least 3% of federal contract dollars to HUBZone­
certified companies each year." 
7 While we discuss a sampling of the evidence in the record, we have reviewed and considered the totality of evidence. 
8 We note that much of Professor I Iletter under the first prong heading, in fact, goes to the Petitioner's eligibility 
under Dhanasar's second prong. 
4 
general topics such as the growth in job opportunities for mechanical engineers in the United States 
and the growth of opportunities for construction managers. What is missing is any analysis of the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor as the opinion letter remains silent on the Petitioner's plan to 
open a microbrewery as regards national importance. Professor! Idoes not explain how the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor will help U.S. businesses prosper, how or if the endeavor has a 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or how the endeavor has other substantial positive 
economic effects. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter 
of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or 
give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way 
questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, Professor! Iletter is of marginal probative 
value as it does not meaningfully address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as it concerns national 
importance. Professor! ]does not discuss the Petitioner's plan to open a microbrewery in New 
Jersey. Instead, the opinion letter concludes that U.S. companies would "benefit from the expertise of 
an Engineer such as [the Petitioner] with an intimate knowledge of the Construction sector." His 
opinion letter is general in nature and seems unconnected to the Petitioner's actual endeavor. "In 
determining national importance, the officer's analysis should focus on what the beneficiary will be 
doing rather than the specific occupational classification." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(0)(1), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. As Professor! Idoes not provide a substantive analysis 
of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, we are unable to give the letter much weight. 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further 
discussion of the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. As noted above, we 
reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
111. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5