dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Project Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 14, 2024 In Re: 33379853 
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 an individual of exceptional ability, 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. § 1l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner was eligible for a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement. 
The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 1 
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 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. 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: 
1 The Petitioner's filing alternatively indicates that it is a motion to reconsider the decision or an appeal of the decision. 
However, the record is sufficient for us to take jurisdiction over the case as an appeal. 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
• 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. 
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. 
Id. at 889. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model 
or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest 
of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Id. at 890. 
The third prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the individual's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer 
or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are 
available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national 
interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. 
In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish 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. 
Id. at 890-91. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a project manager who has worked on large-scale events, public 
works projects, and 
commercial and residential building projects. He holds a bachelor's degree in chemistry as well as an 
MBA. He has completed work within existing companies and acted as a CEO, commercial manager, 
and project manager, among other roles. 
The Director found the Petitioner qualified for underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. 3 However, the Director determined that the Petitioner had 
not met the Dhanasar requirements for a waiver of a job offer and labor certification from a U.S. 
employer. Specifically, the Director concluded that the record established that the proposed endeavor 
had substantial merit and that the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance the endeavor. However, 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
3 The Petitioner initially asserted qualification for EB-2 classification based on exceptional ability, however the Director 
found him qualified due to his completion of an advanced degree. This dete1mination is supported by the record. 
2 
the Director found that the national importance of the endeavor had not been demonstrated under 
prong one. The Director also determined that the Petitioner had not shown that a waiver of the job 
offer requirement would be beneficial as required by prong three. We agree the Petitioner has not 
established the national importance of the endeavor, as required under the first prong of Dhanasar. 
A. The Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that The Endeavor Has National Importance 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the endeavor will have the required impact, it stands to advance 
project management methodologies with "innovative solutions to the market that are not currently 
available," particularly the Petitioner's budget management methodology. He contends that the 
Director "did not give due regard to the evidence in the 
record or apply the appropriate preponderance 
of the evidence standard," instead applying a stricter standard of review. He argues that the Director 
failed to adequately consider the submitted published materials, which were presented as support that 
the endeavor aligns with government initiatives. Similarly, he argues that the Director disregarded the 
submitted expert opinion letter. 
The Petitioner also argues that the Director unduly limited the analysis by describing the endeavor as 
acting as a "project manager contractor for various companies in the construction industry." Rather, 
he contends that the endeavor was more detailed and original, as it focused on using innovative 
methodologies to optimize resources and digital tools to propose solutions; in addition, the Petitioner 
highlights his ability to combine different project management approaches with modern tools. He 
argues that the Director failed to consider that the proposed endeavor introduces improved 
manufacturing processes, one of the factors in deciding national importance outlined inDhanasar. Id. 
at 890. In particular, the Petitioner highlights his use of digital solutions and intelligent urban 
construction models when applying his methodology. 
In support of the endeavor's national importance, the Petitioner has submitted evidence including, but 
not limited to: an initial and updated professional plan; academic credentials, certificates, and training; 
evidence of prior work experience including schematics and details of construction projects; expert 
evaluations of his educational credentials; an expert evaluation of his eligibility for a national interest 
waiver; letters of support; letters of intent to retain his services; communications from industry 
recruiters; government communications including White House Fact sheets; and industry articles 
detailing the impact of project managers and the current state of the construction industry. 
As an initial matter, the record does not demonstrate that the Director decided the case using an 
incorrect standard of review or imposed a heightened standard. The Petitioner does not articulate 
which standard the Director's decision erroneously applied or indicate with specificity why the 
decision reflects an adjudication by a standard different from the preponderance of the evidence. 
Rather, the Petitioner generally asserts that the submitted evidence was sufficient under this standard 
and that the Director should have granted the Petition. While the Petitioner may disagree with the 
Director's decision, this does not inherently show that the Director inherently misapplied the standard 
of review, and we do not see such a misapplication reflected in the decision. 
With respect to the request for a national interest waiver, the Petitioner has not established that the 
proposed endeavor has a prospective potential impact rising to the level of national importance. The 
Petitioner's endeavor, as defined on appeal, is "to implement and disseminate an innovative 
3 
methodology aimed at preventing budgeting excess and opttm1zmg resources in construction 
projects." 4 As part of this endeavor, the Petitioner intends to implement and refine his methodology 
and train other professionals to incorporate these practices, thereby reducing waste in the construction 
industry and making progress toward sustainability benchmarks nationwide. 
Throughout the record, the Petitioner points to his background, education, experience in his field, and 
the complexity of his prior undertakings. The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in the field, 
however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is 
whether the specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. To evaluate 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to 
evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. 
The Director determined, and we agree, that the proposed endeavor lacked the broader implications 
outlined in Dhanasar. Id. at 889. In particular, the Director highlighted that the proposed endeavor 
did not stand to sufficiently extend beyond the Petitioner's prospective clients, associates and partners 
such that it would have a national impact. While the individuals who would receive the Petitioner's 
project management services might find them valuable and beneficial, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how these impacts are nationally important. The Petitioner highlights the general 
impacts of the construction industry on the economy, in particular the need for affordable housing, 
and argues that the current industry is wasteful and not optimized. However, he has not demonstrated 
that his work has implications within his field as contemplated in Dhanasar. In Dhanasar, we 
highlighted examples of possible national implications at including improving human understanding 
and making advances in the field. Id. These or similar factors are not present in the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner argues that his endeavor stands to improve manufacturing processes; while this is one 
factor highlighted by Dhanasar, we do not find the Petitioner's assertion to be supported by the record. 
Although he characterizes his process as "novel" or "innovative," the Petitioner has not established by 
a preponderance of the evidence that his methodology provides a new or unique approach that will 
lead to improved manufacturing processes. While the Petitioner asserts that he has reduced costs and 
waste in his prior projects, he has not adequately linked this reduction to a particular methodology. 
Notably, the Petitioner has highlighted different methodologies through the pendency of this case. 
In the initial filing, the Petitioner indicated that he used various techniques including Project 
Management Body of Knowledge ("PMBOK") and Lean Six Sigma, in coordination with other 
construction management tools, for "efficient validation and management of technologies" and to 
4 The Petitioner's contention that the Director unduly limited the scope of the endeavor is not supported. The Director 
noted that the endeavor could be "summarized" as acting as a project manager, but also outlined the various ways the 
Petitioner had defined the endeavor; we note that the Petitioner's proposal has evolved through the pendency of the case. 
Initially, the Petitioner noted that he intended "to contribute to the U.S. economy as a Project Manager Specialist 
developing advanced solutions to improve infrastructure, smart structures, reduce waste material and reduce environmental 
impact;" the initial filing also reflected an intent to"provide a differentiated service concept" and apply a budget 
management methodology. The Petitioner later indicated that the endeavor was "to advance the American construction 
industry through the implementation and dissemination of my project management methodology" and "implement my 
innovative approach to project management." However, the Director fully considered the record evidence, and the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of the endeavor under either formulation. 
4 
improve performance on various projects. The Petitioner indicated that he had developed an award­
winning budget management methodology but did not provide details of what this method entailed. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence ("RFE"), the Petitioner provided an updated 
professional plan indicating that he would use different theories in combination: define, measure, 
analyze, improve, and control ("DMAIC"); plan, do, and check ("PDCA"); and intelligent urban 
construction models. 
Because of the changing description of the methodology, we are limited in our ability to assess its 
potential prospective impact. Even if we were to credit a particular formulation, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that he has created a methodology likely to enhance or improve manufacturing 
processes. The Petitioner appears to have adopted existing parameters and tools into his work. For 
instance, the Petitioner notes that he has applied PMBOK, DMAIC, and PDCA methodologies in his 
projects; however, the Petitioner does not claim to have developed these methodologies, nor has he 
adequately explained how using a particular combination of methodologies is sufficient to constitute 
a manufacturing process improvement that is likely to broadly impact the U.S. construction sector. 
The evidence does not otherwise reflect that the endeavor stands to improve human knowledge, further 
research outcomes, or contribute to scientific advancements in the United States or globally. Id. 
Finally, the Petitioner has not shown that the proposed endeavor would have "significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or [have] other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." Id. The Petitioner's economic arguments generally focus on a lack of 
affordable housing, the importance of reducing waste in the construction industry, and the difficulty 
in accessing project management in economically depressed areas. However, these arguments are not 
accompanied by evidence of the particularized economic impact that the endeavor would produce in 
these areas. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. We reserve opinion 
on whether the Petitioner could satisfy the second and third prongs to qualify for a national interest waiver. 
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 the 
applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that the proposed endeavor is of national importance. Because he has not 
met the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 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. 
5