dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mining Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 8, 2024 In Re: 29849641 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner 
also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that the Petitioner 
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 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 establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this 
classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing 
is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar , 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance; (2) that the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements 
of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 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 first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. 
See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
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 of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer is warranted. 
The Petitioner described the proposed endeavor as a plan to "serve as [s]enior [t]echnical [m]anager 
of [ e ]ngineering and [p]rocesses" at his newly created company that will provide consulting services 
to companies operating in the U.S. mining industry. The Petitioner submitted a business plan that 
asserts his company will "provide the latest technology, innovative and sustainable solutions to 
businesses in the U.S. [and] aid American companies in their expansion to the Latin American mining 
market." The business plan states that the company's target clients will be mining companies located 
in Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, South Carolina, and Alaska. The business plan indicates that, in 
addition to employing the Petitioner, the company will hire one metallurgical engineer in the first year 
of operation, one mechanical engineer in the second year of operation, and one hydraulic engineer in 
the third year of operation, with no additional workers hired in either the fourth or fifth years of 
operation, for a total of four workers in the foreseeable future. 
Documents in the record, such as a commercial contract and information the Petitioner submitted to 
the State of Florida, Department of State, Division of Corporations, establish that the Petitioner's 
company operates at a location matching the private residence he provided as his address of record, 
located inl IFlorida. The Petitioner asserted in response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE) that he "will actively recruit professionals from the state of New Mexico, where [his company] 
will establish a branch of our consultancy ... driven by the fact that New Mexico is a strategic location, 
given that it is a prominent mining region, and that it is particularly near major global copper mining 
operators." The record does not reconcile why the business plan omitted New Mexico as a location 
for target clients. The record also does not reconcile whether the professionals the Petitioner will 
"actively recruit" from New Mexico are among the total of three workers, other than the Petitioner, 
the business plan indicates the company will hire in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the record 
does not reconcile whether the Petitioner and his company's three other employees would work in the 
Petitioner's private residence in Florida, in New Mexico, remotely at clients' places of business, or 
elsewhere. 
2 
The record also contains generalized information regarding the mining industry and business, the 
Petitioner's academic and work experience, and letters of recommendation. 
The Director acknowledged that the proposed endeavor, as described in the record, has substantial 
merit. The Director also concluded that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, as contemplated by the second Dhanasar prong. However, the Director noted that the record 
in general, and the business plan more specifically, primarily addresses generalized information 
regarding the mining industry and business, and the Petitioner's academic and work experience, rather 
than establishing how the proposed endeavor may have national importance. The Director observed, 
"The [P]etitioner has not established that [his] proposed endeavor in the United States will have a 
broader impact on the field outside of [his] prospective company and/or clients." The Director also 
acknowledged that an opinion letter asserts that the endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers; however, the Director also observed that the record does not substantiate the letter writer's 
claims. Accordingly, the Director concluded that the record does not establish the proposed endeavor 
may have national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. The Director further 
concluded that the record does not satisfy the third Dhanasar prong. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
On appeal, the Petitioner summarizes his prior academic and work history, he reiterates generalized 
information regarding the mining industry and business, and he asserts that his statement submitted in 
response to the Director's RFE, the company's business plan, three opinion letters, documentary 
evidence of the Petitioner's company's contracts, and letters of support establish that the proposed 
endeavor has national importance. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 
"specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See id. at 889. Dhanasar provided 
examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first prong, having 
"national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that have broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
We first note that information in the record-whether in the Petitioner's RFE statement, the business 
plan, opinion letters, letters of support, or otherwise-that discusses the Petitioner's prior academic 
and work history pertains to whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, as contemplated by the second Dhanasar prong. See id. However, because the Petitioner's 
prior academic and work history does not inform how "the specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] 
proses to undertake" may have "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as 
those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area," his prior academic and work history 
is immaterial to determining whether the specific, prospective, proposed endeavor may have national 
importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. Relatedly, although documentary 
evidence of contracts pertain to interest in the Petitioner's company's services and, thus, whether the 
3 
Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, the contracts do not establish how the 
proposed endeavor may have national importance. See id. 
We next note that generalized information in the record-whether in the Petitioner's RFE statement, 
the business plan, opinion letters, letters of support, or otherwise-regarding the mining industry and 
business pertains to issues such as whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as 
contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. However, because generalized information 
regarding the mining industry and business does not inform how "the specific endeavor that the 
[ noncitizen] proses to undertake" may have "national or even global implications within a particular 
field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or 
broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area," such generalized 
information does not establish how the specific proposed endeavor may have national importance, as 
contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. 
Aside from their focus on the Petitioner's prior academic and work history, and on generalized 
information regarding the mining industry and business, neither the Petitioner's RFE statement nor 
the business plan otherwise establish how the proposed endeavor may have national importance. The 
Petitioner references extant and potential "state-of-the art and highly specialized emerging 
technologies" that his mining industry consulting company will advise its clients and customers to 
use; however, the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may be responsible for those 
technologies, apparently developed by other engineers not among the workforce of four employees, 
including the Petitioner. Relatedly, the Petitioner's RFE statement and the business plan indicate that 
the endeavor will entail advising the Petitioner's company's clients and customers; however, the 
record does not establish how the company's consulting activities will extend beyond benefitting the 
Petitioner and his company, and the company's clients and customers receiving its services, to amount 
to the type of "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances," as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
See id. In tum, the Petitioner's RFE statement and the business plan indicate that the Petitioner's 
company will employ himself and three other engineers for a total of four employees in some 
unspecified location-apparently at the Petitioner's own private residence-and the Petitioner asserts 
that his company "will lead to the creation of additional 16 indirect jobs according to multipliers 
provided by [the Economic Policy Institute]"; however, the record does not establish how those four 
direct and 16 indirect jobs in unspecified locations demonstrate "significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area," as contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. 
Next, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that he "respectfully hold[ s] a different opinion than USCIS' 
conclusion that the opinion letters did not demonstrate the national importance of [his] proposed 
endeavor." The Petitioner adds that he values the opinion letters "because they provide an unbiased 
and informed assessment of [his] work and its potential impact on the nation." He believes that "[tt ]he 
expertise and stature of these individuals lend weight to [his] qualifications and affirm the significance 
and impact of his work within the country." However, despite expressing his disagreement on appeal, 
the Petitioner does not identify any particular information in any of the opinion letters that overcomes 
the Director's observations and conclusions about them. As discussed above, the record does not 
support the conclusion that the proposed endeavor's employment of four total workers-including the 
4 
Petitioner-at some unspecified location that appears to be the Petitioner's private residence in 
Florida, with the potential to create 16 indirect jobs also in unspecified locations, demonstrates 
"significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area," as contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. Thus, the 
letters that opine, without substantiation, that the proposed endeavor has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers cast substantial doubt on the credibility of the authors, and on the reliability and 
sufficiency of their opinions. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (providing that 
doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition). Particularly in light of the opinion letters' 
minimal reliability and sufficiency, they do not otherwise establish how the proposed endeavor may 
have national importance, and the Petitioner does not articulate any error the Director may have made 
regarding the opinion letters. 
Next, as addressed above, the letters of support in the record generally address the Petitioner's prior 
academic and work history and provide generalized information regarding the mining industry and 
business. They also generally assert that the Petitioner has benefitted or has the potential to benefit 
particular companies with whom his company contracts. However, the letters of support do not 
establish how the specific, prospective endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have 
"national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or broader implications, such as "significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We 
reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5