dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Rope Access

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 13, 2025 In Re: 35539862 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a rope access specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 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. 
§ 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner 's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. The matter is now before 
us on appeal pursuant to 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). 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. Id. 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation , a petitioner m ay submit comparabl e 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. If a petitioner 
does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality 
shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree of expertise and will substantially benefit 
the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States. 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director did not make a determination as to whether the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying 
EB-2 immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability3, but concluded that the Petitioner 
did not establish eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. Nevertheless, because we agree 
that the Petitioner is not eligible for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework, we 
reserve our opinion regarding his eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification. 4 
The Petitioner intends to work as a rope access specialist and operate his own construction company, 
According to the record, rope access technicians use 
practical ropework techniques derived from climbing and caving to access difficult-to-reach locations 
without the use of scaffolding, cradles, or an aerial work platform. Given the nature of the work, rope 
access technicians can serve a variety of industries, including the offshore oil and gas industry and the 
construction and civil engineering industries. In his personal statement, the Petitioner stated that he 
intends to "apply all [his] knowledge and experience to manage complex systems bringing solutions 
for high jobsite issues, creating new opportunities of work and training for new professionals to 
execute extremely complex works." The Petitioner intends to operate his company in Florida to bring 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
3 The Director informed the Petitioner in their request for evidence (RFE) that, because the record did not establish he 
earned at least a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign degree equivalent, he was not eligible for EB-2 immigrant classification 
as an advanced degree professional. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner only asserted his eligibility for the EB-2 
immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
4 Where a case warrants a dismissal regardless of other eligibility considerations, it is unnecessary that we address those 
other considerations. Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 332 (2022) (citing INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) 
(finding agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate 
decision)). 
2 
his rope access expertise to the state's construction industry, and create a safe and effective manner of 
executing challenging industrial work that cannot be completed using standard construction methods. 
In support of this endeavor, the record contains the Petitioner's personal statement describing his 
professional background and his company's operations in Brazil as well as his intent to develop a 
company in the United States, various industry articles and reports providing general background 
information on the rope access technician occupation, the benefits of rope access to the renewable 
energy sector, labor shortages facing the construction industry and the growing demand for rope access 
technicians, as well as articles discussing real estate development in Florida. Additionally, the 
Petitioner submitted government publications regarding federal initiatives aimed at infrastructure 
development, several photographs and information discussing his past projects, and recommendation 
letters from former colleagues and clients commending his reputation as a highly skilled rope access 
specialist and leader in his field, and detailing the complex projects he completed. 
The Director concluded that the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested 
national interest waiver because he did not meet any of the three Dhanasar prongs. Regarding the 
first Dhanasar prong, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish the national 
importance of his endeavor because he did not demonstrate that his company's prospective impact 
would result in broader implications to the industry commensurate with national importance, nor did 
he show that the endeavor has a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise result in 
substantial economic benefits contemplated in Dhanasar. In response to the Petitioner's evidence 
discussing the importance of his past projects, the Director stated that he had not shown that his work 
serves as an impetus for progress in his field, affected the industry, or generated substantial positive 
discourse in the broader community. The Director further concluded that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, waiving 
the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly consider the evidence in the record, 
and applied a heightened standard of proof, contending that the record establishes that he is eligible 
for the national interest waiver. In regard to the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner 
contests the Director's statement that the Petitioner had not shown that "as a [r]ope [a]ccess 
[technician] his work serves as an impetus for progress in the field, that it has affected the industry, or 
that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the broader community," asserting that this shows 
the Director's decision applied requirements beyond the standard established in Dhanasar. 
Additionally, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by not explaining why the record does not 
establish the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
We agree with the Petitioner that his past experience and success more appropriately relate to 
Dhanasar's second prong, not the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Instead, when 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's 
statements to the extent that they imply the Petitioner must establish his past work served as an impetus 
for progress in his field in order to establish the national importance of his endeavor. Yet, while we 
acknowledge the Director's error, because the Director otherwise determined that the record also did 
not establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would result in broader implications commensurate 
with national importance, and we agree with this conclusion, we conclude that this error was not 
3 
material to the decision, nor does it warrant a remand. See generally Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 
at, 350 n.5 (citing Japarkulova v. Holder, 615 F.3d 696, 701 (6th Cir. 2010) (stating that error is 
harmless where there is no "reason to believe that ... remand might lead to a different result" ( citation 
omitted))). Moreover, on appeal the Petitioner does not establish that the evidence in the record shows 
that his spec[fic endeavor is of national importance. It is not enough to generally assert errors in a 
decision; the Petitioner must also establish that they were prejudiced by any claimed errors. Errors 
can be overlooked when they had no bearing on the substance of an agency's decision. See e.g., 
Aguilar v. Garland, 60 F.4th 401, 407 (8th Cir. 2023) (citing Prohibition Juice Co. v. United States 
Food & Drug Admin., 45 F.4th 8, 24 (D.C. Cir. 2022)). 
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). Turning 
to our review of the record, we conclude that while the record contains sufficient documentation to 
establish the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor, it does not establish, by a preponderance 
of the evidence, that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance as contemplated 
under the Dhanasar framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner continues to assert the national importance of his proposed endeavor by 
primarily relying on the general benefits provided by the rope access industry and rope access 
technicians. For example, the Petitioner asserts that the rope access services he provides will benefit 
U.S. companies and society "as rope access, despite being a highly dangerous profession, is more cost­
efficient than using traditional scaffolding and cranes, [which] allows businesses to maintain 
infrastructure more frequently ... ensuring uninterrupted services." But this misapplies the Dhanasar 
framework. When determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
field, industry, or occupation 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 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. 
Moreover, while the record establishes that the Petitioner's services in rope access may be valuable to 
his prospective clients, the Petitioner has not supported his claims that his spec[fic endeavor will 
impact the industry more broadly. For example, the Petitioner broadly asserts that, through the rope 
access services he provides, he will benefit the economy, society, and the industry, adding that he can 
"conduct[] essential inspections, maintenance, and repairs in bridges, tall buildings, and other 
infrastructure." But these benefits relate to the overall benefits and importance of his industry, and 
the rope access technician occupation. The Petitioner has not elaborated on how his specific work will 
result in broader implications to his field, rather than his immediate prospective clients. In the same 
way teaching activities proposed by the petitioner in Dhanasar were not shown to have a broader 
impact on the field of STEM education, activities which only benefit the Petitioner's prospective 
clients would not result in broader implications in the field. Dhanasar at 893. 
4 
We have also reviewed the letters ofrecommendation and evidence of the Petitioner's prior projects, 
and while they establish the Petitioner has had a successful career, they do not establish the prospective 
impact of his proposed endeavor. While we recognize that, through his company abroad, the Petitioner 
has successfully completed critical projects in the past, a petitioner's expertise and record of success 
are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated 
the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
Additionally, upon review, we conclude that the record also does not establish that the Petitioner's 
endeavor "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." See Dhanasar at 890. Although the record 
discusses the economic impact of the rope access industry more generally, including the cost savings 
it can provide to large development projects, the Petitioner has not shown how his specific endeavor 
would result in substantial economic benefits discussed in Dhanasar. Although any basic economic 
activity has the potential to positively impact a local economy, without sufficient information or 
evidence regarding any projected economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work 
(as opposed to the economic impact ofthe industry more generally), the record does not show that benefits 
to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level 
of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. 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. Because the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs as well as a determination as to whether the Petitioner has met 
the requirements of EB-2 classification. 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"). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5