dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Petroleum Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 31, 2024 In Re: 34555197 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a petroleum engineer, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. 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 and the subsequent motion to reopen and 
reconsider, concluding the Petitioner had not established that eligibility for 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. 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 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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," 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 (and Third 
in an unpublish ed 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 job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. As it relates to substantial merit, the 
endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, 
technology, culture, health, or education. Id. at 889. Because the record reflects the proposed 
endeavor, developing a web education platform for the energy industry, falls within one or more of 
these areas, the Petitioner established the substantial merit aspect. However, while the Petitioner 
established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not show it has national 
importance. 
The Petitioner intends to create a learning platform through his company, Ithat will educate 
the energy industry workforce so that those in the industry will be able to access courses of interest 
created by experts to assist in developing professional skills. In his initial business plan, he stated that 
he believes that lwill "help empower the energy industry workforce, knowledge and attitudes 
to close skill gaps that will allow them to stay or enter the future labor market and progress in the 
professional and personal field." He explains that the proposed endeavor will "improve the education 
of the energy workforce of the U.S. through his startup of educational technologies aimed at the energy 
sector in the United States." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director erred in concluding that he did not establish the national 
importance of his endeavor, specifically that the Director's analysis of his teaching activities 
overlooked that the teaching activities are in EdTech and not in the traditional classroom. Relying on 
similar assertions made in the initial petition, the Petitioner contends that education start-up companies 
such asl Iare needed to attract new resources and develop the workforce. He maintains that 
the Director's analysis was flawed, and that he qualifies for the national interest waiver. 
Upon de novo review of the record, we agree with the Director's evaluation of the evidence, and 
conclude it does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance as 
contemplated under the Dhanasar framework. The standard of proof in this proceeding is 
preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner must show that what is claimed is "more 
likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine 
whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance standard, we consider not only the 
quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. 
Id.; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We 
therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting that "[a ]n undertaking may 
2 
have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a 
particular field." Id. Although the Petitioner did detail the business model for his startup educational 
technology company, he did not demonstrate how his educational platform would largely influence 
the field and rise to the level of national importance. The record does not show through supporting 
documentation how the online educational platform sufficiently extends beyond his prospective 
students to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
Although the Petitioner contends that he submitted many probative reports on the importance of 
various national and government initiatives in STEM education, such as "Biden-Harris Administration 
Actions to Attract STEM Talent and Strengthen our Economy and Competitiveness", "Building a 
Stronger Infrastructure and Clean Energy Workforce,", "This Map Reveals Clean Energy Jobs Now 
Outnumber Fossil-Fuel Ones," and "Global EdTech Market - Outlook & Forecast 2023-2028", the 
matter here is not whether these initiatives, as well as the topics of education platforms and jobs in the 
energy sector or similarly related subjects, are nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing web learning 
platforms to the energy workforce. Here the Petitioner relies on articles regarding the importance of 
education and the energy industry in general but fails to show how his proposed endeavor will reach 
prospective students and in tum impact the energy field at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
The Petitioner's statements and business plan reflect his intention to provide valuable educational 
services to individuals in the energy field, but he has not provided sufficient information and evidence 
to demonstrate that the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. For example, in his business plan the Petitioner asserts that his company will provide 
"courses developed by experts in the sector and will be grouped into topicals according to competences 
to be developed (skills, knowledge and attitudes)" On appeal he explains further that, I I 
educational content grouped based on a taxonomy that allows users to acquire the necessary skills to 
fill the jobs.", but he does not provide further explanation of his innovative teaching methodology 
such that it can be considered to extend beyond the individual students. Generalized conclusory 
statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 17 56, Inc. 
v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990)(holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
In the business plan submitted with the initial filing, the Petitioner contends that his endeavor can 
mitigate the changes in the energy industry as employment shifts from the fossil to the clean energy 
fields, and that the United States is experiencing a shortage and a need for re-training in the solar, wind 
and electric vehicle subsector However, the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills 
does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, 
such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through 
the labor certification process 
Finally, in the financial impact section of the business plan for the proposed company, the plan lacked 
supporting evidence to corroborate the assertions and figures. Moreover, 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 offer substantial positive 
3 
economic effects for our nation. Although the plan forecasts revenue from $440K in year 1 to $53M 
in year 5, the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits to the 
regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
For all these reasons, the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the benefits provided to prospective 
students, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having 
national importance or that it would offer substantial positive economic effects. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, and therefore 
we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar's second and third 
prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reached"); 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4