dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Project Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 25, 2024 In Re: 29547473 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a project management specialist, 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 Acting Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 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. 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. 
Upon de novo 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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
884. Because this identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar 
prong. See INSv. 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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. 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they 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 I&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,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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined 
that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 3 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner states that he has more than 20 years of experience in strategic planning and 
management, including for the Brazilian government, focusing on "project management in the 
environment and town planning fields." He states that his experience includes "team leadership, 
organizational consulting, environmental preservation projects, urbanism and town planning 
initiatives, budgetary, financial and people management." His proposed endeavor is to "advance [his] 
career in project management, focusing on the Environmental, Urbanism, and related fields." The 
Petitioner proposes to offer the following services to U.S. companies: 
• Create innovative and effective solutions for urban and environmental problems 
common in American cities, improving welfare. 
• Plan and promote initiatives to improve traffic, leisure areas, and the better use of 
natural resources, benefitting citizens and enabling economic growth. 
• Provide management strategy, for huge projects, ensuring proper deployment while 
diminishing the impact on society's routine. 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act. 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the equivalent ofa U.S . master's degree awarded in 2022 . See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). 
2 
• Support U.S. companies in the infrastructure and urbanism fields to establish their 
objectives by creating adequate solutions to meet government standards and 
requests concerning environmental issues, ensuring the success of the project and 
the economy. 
• Develop and implement effective training programs to educate other professionals 
in the project management field. 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of his education and experience, a personal 
statement describing his proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a national interest waiver, as 
well as recommendation and support letters, an expert opinion letter, and evidence of his accomplished 
projects. He also submitted evidence of U.S. government initiatives highlighting infrastructure, 
transportation and environmental protection, as well as articles and industry reports discussing the 
demand for and shortage of project management professionals. 
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 the national interest 
waiver. The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes an updated personal statement, additional 
academic records, and copies of evidence previously submitted. 
In his updated personal statement, the Petitioner states that he will offer his services as project manager 
or consultant to companies, universities, and local, state, and federal governments. He states that he 
intends "to bring effective solutions to common urban problems, planning and deploying complex 
projects successfully, to avoid delays and unnecessary expenses [to] stimulate urban development with 
environmental preservation, attending to urgent demand from the federal, state, and local government, 
in favor of the development of economy and infrastructure." 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Acting Director determined that the Petitioner had 
established that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and that he submitted 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, she 
concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor had national 
importance, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements 
of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. The Acting Director determined that the record did 
not demonstrate that the Petitioner's business will have a regional or national impact at a level 
consistent with having national importance, or that the Petitioner's work will have broader 
implications in his field of endeavor, going beyond his own business and clients. Additionally, the 
Acting Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate national interest factors such as the 
impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit of his prospective contributions to the United States, 
an urgent national interest in his contributions, the potential creation of jobs, or that his self­
employment does not adversely affect U.S. workers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Acting Director erred in not "analyz[ing] 
all the evidence attached in this case." In his brief on appeal, the Petitioner references evidence already 
in the record and states that this evidence demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that he 
merits a national interest waiver. The Petitioner also submits an updated report for a project he 
completed in Brazil. The Petitioner states that the updated system report demonstrates "that the 
interest and relevance are in growth, as accesses are presenting exponential growth." 
3 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, 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. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&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 farther 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 submits articles and industry reports describing the role of project managers, as well as 
Executive Orders demonstrating that investment in infrastructure is a national initiative. 4 We 
conclude, however, that the articles and reports in the record do not establish the national importance 
of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. A printout of the Washington, D.C. Department of Human 
Resources website describes the city's Certified Public Manager program, a graduate-level course 
focusing on team building and leadership. The Petitioner does not explain how this course description 
demonstrates that his specific proposed endeavor is of national importance. Similarly, a printout of 
the U.S. General Services Administration website announces that the agency will discontinue the use 
of the "Electronic Project Management Tool" to manage projects. The Petitioner also does not explain 
the relevance of this information. Two reports from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
discuss urbanization and smart growth. However, these reports provide general information and do 
not focus on the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. As noted above, the Acting Director 
determined the endeavor has substantial merit, and we agree. However, the question we are examining 
here is national importance. 
Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the initiative of infrastructure improvement, rather than 
his specific proposed endeavor. Although we agree that project management plays an important in 
infrastructure development, and infrastructure development may be the subject of national initiatives, 
we conclude that this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific 
proposed endeavor. Even considering the articles and reports, collectively and in the totality of 
circumstances, the record contains insufficient information or evidence regarding the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor to show broad potential implications demonstrating national importance. 
The Petitioner also submits his personal statements to support the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. As noted, to establish national importance, the Petitioner must demonstrate the proposed 
endeavor's impact. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed 
4 While we discuss a sampling of these aiiicles and rep01is, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
endeavor and that"[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national 
or even global implications within a particular field." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Although the Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor "has the potential to impact the economy 
and America's quality of life," he has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, 
objective evidence. 
The Petitioner does not provide a business plan to describe how he intends to offer his services or 
identify potential clients. The Petitioner's personal statements are not specific or detailed enough for 
us to assess the potential prospective impact of it in the abstract, without considering the specific ways 
in which the Petitioner intends to implement this goal. The record does not include letters of interest 
from any business or potential client. Although the record includes descriptions of the Petitioner's 
past managed projects in Brazil, he does not provide a description of any project that he intends to 
manage through his proposed endeavor. "In determining national importance, the officer's analysis 
should/ocus on what the beneficiary will be doing rather than the specific occupational classification." 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (emphasis added). 
The Petitioner claims that the denial is deficient because the Acting Director did not consider the 
entirety of the evidence in the record. While we agree that an adjudicator should consider the relevant 
evidence in the record, the Petitioner does not sufficiently support his claim that there was relevant 
evidence that the Acting Director did not consider. The Petitioner does not cite to or describe which 
specific evidence was not given consideration. We note that the decision discusses each of the claimed 
pieces of evidence the Petitioner lists in his brief. Nevertheless, we address them again herein. 
The Petitioner continues to rely upon the asserted merits of the services he will provide, his personal 
and professional qualities and achievements, and the general importance of project management to 
national initiatives, including infrastructure development and environmental preservation. However, 
as set forth above, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national 
importance. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
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 balancing factors under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful 
purpose. As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining 
Dhanasar prongs. 5 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
5 Even if we had addressed the remaining issues, we still would have dismissed this appeal. As noted above, the Acting 
Director concluded that, although the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not establish its national 
importance, or 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. On appeal, the Petitioner references the same supp01ting evidence submitted with the original 
petition and RFE response. The Petitioner does not explain how the new evidence, an updated system report regarding a 
past project in Brazil. demonstrates his eligibility for a national interest waiver. The Acting Director fully addressed the 
previously submitted evidence and explained how it was deficient in establishing that the Petitioner met the first and third 
Dhanasar factors and would be eligible for a national interest waiver. The Petitioner's assertions on appeal do not establish 
that he meets all of the three Dhmwsar prongs. 
5 
III. 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. 
6