dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Residential Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 12, 2024 In Re: 31264320 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a general and operations manager in the residential construction industry, seeks 
employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The 
Petitioner also requests a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 
classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(l) of the Act. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the requested EB-2 classification and that he merits a 
discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of labor certification, in the national 
interest. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § I 03 .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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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 T&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: 
• 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. ADV AN CED DEGREE 
The first issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established his eligibility for EB-2 immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner possesses the foreign 
equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in civil engineering based on his completion of a four-year 
engineering degree at a Brazilian university in 1987. However, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that he has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate 
experience in this specialty, and therefore did not demonstrate that he holds an advanced degree as 
defined at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision failed to address the work experience 
letters he submitted at the time of filing and in response to a request for evidence (RFE) and did not 
explain why such letters were deemed insufficient to demonstrate his years of relevant work 
experience in the civil engineering and construction industries since 1987. The Petitioner also 
emphasizes that throughout his career, he has been self-employed as an autonomous civil engineer or 
through his partnership or partial ownership in several engineering and construction firms in Brazil. 
He maintains that the previously submitted letters from his accountants, partners, and other 
representatives of these firms are sufficient to establish that he has significantly more than five years 
of progressive and relevant post-baccalaureate work experience and therefore satisfies the definition 
of "advanced degree." 
Upon review, the Petitioner's assertions are persuasive, and we agree he has met his burden to 
demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he holds an "advanced degree" as defined at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) based on his completion of the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree in civil 
engineering and at least five years of progressive experience in this specialty. Accordingly, we 
withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish his eligibility for EB-2 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 2 
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 unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 Because the record establishes that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, 
we need not address his alternative claim that he qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 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 of L-A-C-, 26 I&N 
2 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
The remaining issue before us is whether the Petitioner has established that a discretionary waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had demonstrated the substantial merit of his proposed 
endeavor but had not established its national importance, and that, on balance, it would be beneficial 
to the United States to waive the job offer requirement. For the reasons provided below, we agree 
with the Director's conclusions. While we will not address each piece of evidence individually, we 
have reviewed and considered each one. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner submitted a personal statement and a business plan in support of the petition. The 
Petitioner indicates that he intends to operate a Florida-based company primarily focused on the 
construction of residential condominiums and townhouses in I I and its surrounding area. He 
states that his real estate projects will "meet the demand for housing, exceed customer expectations 
and practice socio-environmental responsibility" and will be targeted at retirees, families, tourists, and 
foreign investors. According to projections in the submitted business plan, the Petitioner anticipates 
his company's construction and sale of four townhomes on an annual basis over a five-year period. In 
response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner indicated that his company had already purchased three 
plots of land in anl Ineighborhood and was negotiating for four additional plots. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar 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 Director determined that the Petitioner demonstrated his proposed endeavor to operate a 
residential construction business has substantial merit but did not establish the endeavor's national 
importance. Specifically, the Director concluded that the submitted evidence did not show that the 
Petitioner's endeavor would result in the type of prospective potential impacts contemplated by 
Dhanasar, such as broader implications in his field or industry, substantial positive economic effects, 
or a significant potential to employ U.S. workers. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the previously 
submitted evidence demonstrates his proposed endeavor "will have important impacts in the economy, 
the community, and the industry." 
The Petitioner has cited market and industry information about the residential construction and 
housing market in Florida and the United States, the shortage of affordable housing, and national 
initiatives supporting access to home ownership. He also provided articles that address the 
Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 20 I 5) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant did not othe1wise meet 
their burden of proof). 
3 
contributions of entrepreneurs, small businesses, and immigrant-owned businesses to the growth and 
stability of the U.S. economy. Based on this evidence, we agree with the Director's determination that 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to own and operate a company focused on residential construction 
has substantial merit. 
In determining national importance, however, 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 Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. A 
petitioner may present a proposed endeavor that focuses on an area with significant merit, but still fall 
short of demonstrating that their specific endeavor has a potential prospective impact in that area that 
is commensurate with national importance. We recognize the value of competent business 
management, the overall impact of the residential construction industry, and the contributions and 
importance of immigrant entrepreneurs; however, merely working in an important field or profession 
is insufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
In Dhanasar, we emphasized 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, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." 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. As noted by the Director, USCIS will also consider whether a petitioner 
demonstrated that a proposed endeavor will broadly enhance societal welfare and whether it impacts 
a matter that is the subject of national initiatives. 
Here, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
documentation or explanation to support his claim that his proposed endeavor has national importance. 
With respect to the direct economic impact of the proposed endeavor, we have reviewed the staffing 
and revenue projections in the submitted business plan. While the business plan generally states that 
the company will employ civil engineers and construction trade workers, the projected personnel costs 
provided therein are static from year to year and indicate that the company anticipates employing only 
the Petitioner, one civil engineer, and one construction trade worker in each of its first five years of 
operation, with minimal additional expenses of $1800 annually for "outsourced services." 
Cumulatively, the business plan indicates that the company will pay approximately $1 million in 
salaries and wages over the five-year period with gross revenue of $7 million and net revenue of 
$485,370. 
However, these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis 
or an explanation of how they will be realized, nor do they demonstrate a significant potential to either 
employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national economy. Specifically, the 
record does not support that the direct creation of a few jobs in this sector or the expected tax revenue 
generated by the company will have a substantial economic benefit commensurate with the national 
importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner cited to industry 
data indicating that residential construction is a high growth sector and a significant contributor to the 
U.S. economy, but he has not demonstrated how a business that expects to build four townhomes 
4 
annually and generate gross revenue of $7 million over five years will have substantial positive 
economic effects in this sector at a level implicating national importance. 
We have also considered the Petitioner's claims that his proposed endeavor will have "ripple effects" 
on the local or regional economy. He submitted an expert opinion letter from a professor at 
who cites industry statistics attributed to the National Association of Home 
Builders (NAHB). For example, he states that, according to the NAHB, the construction of l 00 single 
family homes generates an average of 305 jobs, $23.1 million in wage and business income, and $8.9 
million in tax revenue, and that "every $1 million in construction spending creates 28.5 jobs and 
generates $3.4 million in economic activity." A second expert opinion letter from a professor at 
also refers to "ripple effects" in the construction industry, noting 
that such effects occur "when income earned from construction activity is spent and recycles in the 
local economy." However, neither author directly addresses the potential indirect economic impact 
of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, nor are these indirect economic effects addressed or 
supported in the Petitioner's business plan or through other supporting evidence. While we do not 
doubt that his operation of a new residential construction business would stimulate economic activity 
in the local area at some level, it is the Petitioner's burden to show that the economic effects of the 
proposed endeavor will be "substantial" and at a level commensurate with national importance. Here, 
the record does not contain sufficient relevant or probative evidence showing that the secondary or 
indirect economic benefits of his proposed endeavor would rise to that level. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that his company will invest in an economically distressed 
geographic area, noting that that it has already purchased land in an lzip code designated by 
the Economic Innovation Group (EIG) as "at risk" based on that entity's Distressed Communities 
Index score. However, the Petitioner has not submitted supporting evidence from EIG providing 
additional context for the significance of an "at risk" score, or provided other evidence that would 
support a claim that his proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects in an 
economically depressed area. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner also submits an 
article from the Osceola News-Gazette titled I I 
The article reports that the I Imetropolitan 
area offers just 13 affordable and available units per l 00 extremely low-income households, defined 
as those at or below the federal poverty line. While the Petitioner has documented a shortage of 
affordable housing in thel Iarea, he has not explained or demonstrated that the townhomes he 
intends to build there, which would sell at a price of $350,000 to $400,000, would be marketed to and 
accessible for the region's low-income households. 
For the reasons discussed, the record does not support a determination that any direct or indirect 
benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. 
at 890. 
We have also considered whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have broader implications 
in his field or industry. As noted, in Dhanasar, we determined "[a]n 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." 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that, based on his work experience in Brazil, he will 
5 
"bring a new process and form of constrnction to the United States that is cheaper and more 
environmentally sound" compared to construction processes currently used in the United States. He 
further maintains that the introduction of a new player in the market "with a much better and much 
cheaper method of constrnction" will increase competition and bring down the costs of constrnction 
"in a constantly expanding geographic area." However, the record does not contain adequate support 
for the Petitioner's claim that his construction company will bring improved processes or advances to 
the broader industry or that it will operate at a scope that will impact market competition and lead to 
a marked decrease in construction costs or home prices. 
The Petitioner's business plan for his endeavor does not address how the company will introduce "a 
new process and form of construction to the United States" or otherwise distinguish the company's 
construction methods or processes from an economic or environmental standpoint. The Petitioner 
provided several letters from his previous colleagues and partners familiar with his work in Brazil, but 
they do not provide sufficient details to support a conclusion that the Petitioner has developed 
construction methods that represent improvements or advancements in the field that would be 
implemented through his U.S. company. For example, a reference letter from M-G-V-M-, an architect 
who worked with the Petitioner in the past, notes his "innovative work methodology," while a letter 
from civil engineer C-P-P-A- praises the Petitioner's "innovative ideas" and his incorporation of 
environmental sustainability elements in his projects. However, none of the authors further elaborate 
or identify specific engineering or process innovations that can be attributed to the Petitioner. Even if 
the Petitioner's claimed "new process and form of construction" were adequately documented in the 
record, he has not indicated that he intends to disseminate his processes or methods or shown how 
they would extend beyond his own projects to have broader implications for the industry. His assertion 
that his methods will ultimately result in a reduction in construction costs and home prices across an 
"expanding geographic area" is similarly not supported by relevant or probative evidence. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes on appeal that, because of his extensive industry experience and 
qualifications, he will be able to hire and train individuals with less work experience and technical 
knowledge, enabling him to transfer his own knowledge to them and thereby contributing to the 
development of a more qualified U.S. workforce. However, we determined in Dhanasar that the 
petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they 
would not impact his field more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Like the petitioner in Dhanasar, the 
Petitioner has not established how his teaching or training activities would have broader implications 
in his field that reach beyond his own future employees. 
In addition, through his personal statements and appellate brief, the Petitioner asserts that access to 
adequate housing can improve the quality oflife for individuals and communities, thereby establishing 
that his proposed endeavor will have a positive impact on societal welfare. The Petitioner has also 
emphasized that the use of environmentally sustainable building practices can have implications for 
public health and benefit society by mitigating the construction industry's impact on climate change. 
While we acknowledge the importance of adequate housing and efforts to minimize the industry's 
environmental impacts, the record does not provide sufficient support for a determination that the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would have the potential scope or influence to broadly 
enhance societal welfare in these areas at a level implicating national importance. 
6 
Finally, we acknowledge that through his submission of personal statements, his appellate brief, 
recommendation letters, and expert opinions, the Petitioner has placed considerable emphasis on his 
academic training and professional engineering and management experience in the residential 
construction field. While important, his academic and professional qualifications are considerations 
under the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." Id. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner 
proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. For the reasons 
discussed, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor meets the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
Because the identified reason for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve his remaining arguments concerning his eligibility under third prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ( 1976) (stating that "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). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of 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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7