dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mining Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 18, 2025 In Re: 34828556 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a project manager, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
had established he is eligible for EB-2 classification, the record did not support a finding that a waiver 
of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. The 
Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider that denial with the Director, which they 
subsequently denied. 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. 
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. Our precedent decision, 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 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. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The 
Petitioner intends work in the United States as a project manager in the mining industry, operating 
a business he argues will "support the U.S. mineral and fertilizers mining sector." His proposed 
endeavor is to utilize his business to "provide an exhaustive suite of mining management services to 
empower his clients to optimize operations" in the United States, and he contends his professional 
background gives him the necessary experience to succeed in this endeavor. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish on motion that his proposed endeavor had 
national importance, that he was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that on balance, 
waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. The Director dismissed the motion, 
finding the Petitioner had not overcome the basis for the denial or otherwise established the denial of 
his petition was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. We agree that the Petitioner has 
not established that that waiver of the job offer requirement was in the national interest and will dismiss 
the appeal accordingly. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director erred in dismissing his motion to reconsider, as the 
Director based the decision denying the petition on an incorrect application of law at the time the 
decision was rendered. The Petitioner further asserts that the Director did not give due regard to 
evidence including his business plan, evidence of his work in the field, letters of recommendation, and 
government reports and articles and states that this evidence establishes by a preponderance of the 
evidence that his proposed endeavor has national importance. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director found that 
the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor met the national importance element of the 
first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Specifically, the Director determined the Petitioner did not 
establish his proposed endeavor would have broader implications to the field of mining, have 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or otherwise have substantial positive economic effects 
such that he established its national importance. 
Although any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact a local economy, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity directly resulting from his proposed 
endeavor would rise to the level of national importance. An endeavor may have national importance 
if it "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed area .... " Id. at 890. The Petitioner asserts on 
appeal that the Director did not fully consider his business plan and other evidence related to his 
2 
proposed endeavor and states that his mining consultancy company will generate jobs for U.S. workers 
and will have a significant impact on the local and national economy by "driving economic growth." 
In his business plan, the Petitioner indicated his proposed company would have the potential to employ 
12 people by the end of the first five years of business. However, the business plan does not provide 
sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections. Further, even if sufficient basis were provided 
for the proposed endeavor's revenue and job creation projections, these figures do not establish that 
the Petitioner's company would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance. The 
Petitioner has not explained how his proposed employment metrics would have impact beyond his 
business's area of intended operations. Upon de novo review, we find that the Petitioner did not 
establish his proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects. 
Further, the Petitioner did not establish the specific proposed endeavor will have substantial national 
implications or have a broader impact beyond the individual clients served by his company. On appeal, 
the Petitioner references numerous potential contributions of his business, such as, empowering clients 
in the mining industry to optimize operations and achieve peak performance, assisting mining 
operations in enhancing their productivity, and helping mining operations adopt sustainable practices 
and navigate the evolving challenges of the field. He previously submitted a business plan and letters 
of recommendation to support his assertion that his proposed endeavor will have a significant, broad 
impact. The letters speak to the Petitioner's skills and knowledge of the mining industry, referring to 
him as "a dedicated talented hard worker ... with great integrity and work ethics." When determining 
the national importance of a proposed endeavor, under Dhanasar, we focus on "the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. 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. Although the Petitioner asserts his company will have broad impacts on the national economy and 
on many facets of the mining and fertilizer industries, the evidence submitted by the Petitioner does 
not establish his proposed endeavor would operate on such a large scale to have a national impact on 
any of his claimed industries. The Petitioner has emphasized the importance of fertilizer production, 
including in relation to the implementation of the Global Food Security Strategy in the United States, 
and claims his business will have national implications due to the need for the services provided and 
the value in growing businesses to support the U.S. economy. However, the evidence does not address 
the relevant question of the importance of the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to 
undertake, rather than the general field in which he intends to work. See id. at 889. While we 
acknowledge the importance of the fields of mining and fertilizer production, the Petitioner did not 
establish his proposed endeavor would have broader implications to the overall fields to establish its 
national importance. See id. at 893. 
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). 
3 
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. Further, he has not established the Director erroneously denied his motion to reconsider 
where the underlying decision was not based on any incorrect application of law or policy at the time 
it was rendered. Thus, the appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4