dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Production Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 10, 2024 In Re: 30631776 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
Seeking to establish a production engineering consultancy in the United States, the Petitioner requests 
classification under the employment-based, second-preference (EB-2) immigrant visa category and a 
waiver of the category's job-offer requirement. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has 
discretion to excuse job offers in this category - and thus related requirements for certifications from 
the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) - if petitioners demonstrate that waivers of these U.S.-worker 
protections would be "in the national interest." Id. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director found that the Petitioner 
demonstrated eligibility for the requested EB-2 classification. But the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish the merits of a national interest waiver. On appeal, the Petitioner contends 
that the Director misapplied case law and disregarded evidence in finding insufficient proof that his 
proposed endeavor has "national importance." He also asserts that, overall, a waiver's issuance would 
benefit the United States. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that he has not established that his proposed venture has national importance. We 
will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for national interest waivers, petitioners must first demonstrate their 
qualifications for the EB-2 category, either as members of the professions holding "advanced degrees" 
or their equivalents, or as noncitizens of "exceptional ability" in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. To protect the jobs of U.S. workers, this category usually requires prospective 
employers to offer noncitizens jobs and to obtain DOL certifications to permanently employ the 
individuals in the country. See section 212(a)(5)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(a)(5)(D). Petitioners 
may avoid the job offer/labor certification requirements by demonstrating that waivers of the U.S.­
worker protections would be in the national interest. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Neither the Act nor regulations define the term "national interest." So, to adjudicate these waiver 
requests, we have established a framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889-91 (AAO 
2016). If otherwise qualified as advanced degree professionals or noncitizens of exceptional ability, 
petitioners may warrant waivers of the job-offer/labor certification requirements by demonstrating 
that: 
• Their proposed U.S. work has "substantial merit" and "national importance;" 
• They are "well positioned" to advance their intended endeavors; and 
• On balance, waivers of the job-offer/labor certification requirements would benefit the United 
States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The record shows that the Petitioner, a Brazilian native and citizen, obtained a bachelor's degree in 
mechanical engineering and a master of business administration diploma in his home country. After 
receipt of his baccalaureate degree, he worked in the production engineering field in Brazil for about 
20 years. He worked as a process engineer and industrial engineering coordinator for an automotive 
company until 2012. From 2012 to 2021, a glass company employed him as technical supervisor and 
production manager. 
In the United States, the Petitioner plans to establish his own production engineering consulting 
business. The business would seek to maximize clients' industrial production processes, perform in­
depth process analyses, and help build effective solutions for customers' operations. The Petitioner's 
business plan projects that the company would employ seven people in its first year and 22 workers in 
its fifth year. Over the same period, the plan indicates that the business's annual revenues would rise 
from $396,000 to $1,433,171. 
B. EB-2 Qualifications 
The record supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 category as an 
advanced degree professional. He documented his receipt of the foreign equivalent of a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering, followed by more than five years of experience in the 
production engineering field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining the term "advanced degree" to 
include a "United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty"). 
C. Substantial Merit 
The record also supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. A proposed undertaking may have substantial merit whether it "has the potential to create a 
significant economic impact" or relates to "research, pure science, and the furtherance of human 
knowledge." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
2 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that his proposed venture could generate revenues and U.S. jobs 
and help small businesses to operate more efficiently, allowing them to prosper and grow. We 
therefore agree that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
D. National Importance 
When determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, USCIS must focus on the 
particular venture, specifically on its "potential prospective impact." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. "An undertaking may have national importance, for example, because it has national or 
even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. A nationally important venture may even focus 
on only one geographic area of the United States. Id. at 889-90. "An 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. 
The record supports the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner submitted insufficient evidence that 
his proposed endeavor would substantially boost the economy or improve the production engineering 
field on a national level. The Petitioner has not demonstrated how the business's projected 22 
employees and $1,433,171 in revenues would substantially affect the national economy. The record 
also does not establish that the consultancy would benefit an economically depressed area. Further, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated how his business would advance the production engineering field. 
Much of the Petitioner's evidence of the proposed endeavor's purported national importance consists 
of articles about engineering consulting and its benefits to businesses and the economy. As previously 
indicated, however, we must focus on the Petitioner's particular venture. See Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889 ('The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.") (emphasis added). The 
engineering consulting articles may demonstrate the field's national importance. But the Petitioner 
has provided insufficient evidence that his specific endeavor would have national implications. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director incorrectly analyzed his proposed endeavor's 
national importance. The Petitioner notes that Dhanasar changed the national interest waiver analysis, 
in part, by requiring an endeavor's proposed benefits to have "national importance" rather than be 
"national in scope." See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Dhanasar states: 
[W]e do not evaluate prospective impact solely in geographic terms. Instead, we look 
for broader implications. Even ventures and undertakings that have as their focus one 
geographic area of the United States may properly be considered to have national 
importance. In modifying this prong to assess "national importance" rather than 
"national in scope," as used in [Matter ofN Y. State Dep 't ofTransp., 22 I&N Dec. 215 
(Acting Assoc. Comm'r 1998], we seek to avoid overemphasis on the geographic 
breadth of the endeavor. 
Id. The Petitioner contends that the Director improperly focused on his proposed endeavor's 
"geographical implications" and "lack of potential to employ U.S. workers." He states that the 
Director disregarded other relevant factors, such as whether the endeavor would broadly enhance 
3 
societal welfare or would impact a matter that a government entity described as nationally important 
or that a national initiative supports. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual 7.(D)(5)(D)(l ), 
www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The record, however, does not support the Petitioner's contentions. He does not specify any examples 
of the decision's purported focus on the endeavor's geographic breadth. Our reading of the decision 
does not indicate that the Director required the venture to have a national geographic scope. Rather, 
consistent with Dhanasar, the Director found insufficient evidence that the venture would "more 
broadly" affect the national economy or the production engineering field. See Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 893. For example, the Director's decision states: "Without sufficient documentary 
evidence of its broader impact, the petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the 'national 
importance' element." (emphasis added). 
In Dhanasar, we found that a petitioner's proposal to teach science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) courses to university students lacked national importance. We did not base the 
decision on the proposal's lack of national, geographic scope. Rather, we found insufficient evidence 
"that the petitioner would be engaged in activities that would impact the field of STEM education 
more broadly." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Similarly, the Director here did not base 
her national importance decision on lack of geographic scope, but rather on insufficient evidence of 
the endeavor's "broad" effects on the national economy and the production engineering field. The 
Petitioner's contentions therefore do not persuade us. 
The Petitioner also argues: 
[T]he presence of a professional with more than 20 years of professional experience 
and several courses accomplished overturns the erroneous argument that the petitioner 
would merely generate revenues for private companies and individuals. In fact, it 
actively creates financial bridges and prompts economic development that enhance and 
improve the functionality and monetary output of the nation's economy. 
In determining national importance, however, USCIS does not consider a petitioner's professional 
experience. Rather, the Agency reviews a petitioner's education, training, and experience when 
determining whether they are well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. And, although the Petitioner claims that his business would create 
"financial bridges" and "economic development" enhancing the nation's economy, he has submitted 
insufficient evidence to explain his claims or support his work's purported effect on the national 
economy. 
The Petitioner further argues that his proposed endeavor has national importance because it would 
provide "lean manufacturing solutions customized to customers' needs." He said that his business 
would aim to improve manufacturers' returns on investment while decreasing waste. The Petitioner 
states that the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] encourages lean manufacturing methods 
because of their potential environmental benefits. For example, he says that businesses' elimination 
of unnecessary supplies benefits the environment by removing materials that could deteriorate or spoil 
over time, resulting in solid or hazardous waste. 
4 
The Director's request for additional evidence, however, asked the Petitioner to submit more argument 
and proof of his endeavor's claimed national importance and afforded him a reasonable opportunity 
to respond. We therefore decline to consider the endeavor's claimed environmental benefits for the 
first time on appeal. See Matter ofIzaguirre, 27 I&N Dec. 67, 71 (BIA 2017) ( citation omitted). Also, 
even if we considered the issue, the record lacks sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner 
would persuade enough businesses to adopt lean manufacturing methods to nationally affect the 
environment. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has national 
importance. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
E. The Remaining Waiver Requirement 
Our determination regarding the proposed endeavor's national importance resolves this appeal. We 
therefore decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate argument regarding his 
endeavor's purported benefits to the United States. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
( stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate 
decisions); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternate issues on appeal where an applicant did not otherwise qualify for relief). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has national importance. He therefore 
does not qualify for a national interest waiver, and we affirm the petition's denial for lack of a job 
offer. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5