dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Surveying

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 19, 2024 In Re: 31303898 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a surveyor, 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, 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 Petitioner qualified 
for classification as an individual of exceptional ability, but that he had not established that a waiver 
of the required job offer, 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 l&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 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 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. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 
thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner demonstrates 
1 See 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). 
that (1) the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the 
noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, indicate 
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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to offer surveying services through his company, _______ The 
Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability. For the reasons 
discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer is 
warranted. 
A. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
The Director noted that the Petitioner has established that he qualifies for the requested classification 
as an individual of exceptional ability. The Director, however, did not provide an analysis relating to 
the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification. 
The resolution of the issues pertaining to the Petitioner's eligibility for a waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus of a labor certification, under the Dhanasar analytical framework are dispositive 
of this appeal. For that reason, we will reserve consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility for the 
requested EB-2 category. 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 
2 
of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal in 
removal proceedings where an applicant did not otherwise qualify for relief). 
B. The Proposed Endeavor's Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. The Director 
determined, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor is of national 
importance, that he is well-positioned to advance it, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United 
States to waive the job offer requirement. We agree. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to offer surveying services through his company. The Petitioner 
states that his company will offer "accurate and reliable surveying services" including conducting 
precise measurements, collecting data, and delivering high-quality reports and maps. The Petitioner 
further asserts that he will offer training to professionals in the same field, engineers, and graduates 
without surveying experience. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) requesting, among other things, further evidence of 
the proposed endeavor's national importance. In the RFE, the Director determined that the Petitioner 
failed to demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national or global implications within the Petitioner's 
field of industry. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted additional documents including a 
business plan, industry reports and articles, and bank statements. The Director found that while the 
Petitioner's endeavor had substantial merit, the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor is 
of national importance. In the decision denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner 
did not establish his proposed endeavor has broader implications, has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers, and that it would broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment. 
Furthermore, the Director found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm 
whether his proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director failed to "give due weight" to the evidence submitted 
with the petition and in response to the RFE. The Petitioner also contends that the Director overlooked 
several positive factors supporting the proposed endeavor's national importance including 
recommendation letters and industry reports. 
As previously noted, the first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor the noncitizen 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. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed 
and considered each one. 
The Petitioner maintains that his proposed endeavor holds national importance because it will reduce 
a national shortage of surveyors. The Petitioner argues that this shortage \"directly impacts various 
sectors and industries that rely on accurate and reliable surveying services." The record includes 
industry reports and articles to underscore the shortage of surveyors and the importance of the 
construction industry. 
3 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting its "potential prospective impact." While the Petitioner claims his 
proposed endeavor is of national importance, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and 
evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of 
national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. Id. 
at 893. Similarly, the record here does not include adequate corroborating evidence to show that the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in his field, enhancements to U.S. 
societal welfare, or substantial positive economic effects for the country that rise to the level of 
national importance. 
The Petitioner claims that he will contribute to the overall efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the 
construction industry. The Petitioner further contends that his business will directly and indirectly 
create jobs and generate revenue. Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions, we conclude 
that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients 
to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor will impact a matter that a government entity has 
described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives. However, the relevant 
question nonetheless 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 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 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 asserts that by year five his company will offer 16 jobs and gamer total revenue of 
$5,695,000, however, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate 
that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In 
Dhanasar, we determined 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. Id. at 893. Here, the 
record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific 
proposed work as a business owner and surveyor offering surveying services offers broader 
implications in his field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive economic 
effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner relies on the construction industry's importance and the shortage of surveyors in the 
United States as evidence of his endeavor's importance. However, that fact alone is insufficient to 
establish the national importance of the endeavor proposed here. As previously mentioned, in 
determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Although the Petitioner states that he plans to 
address the shortage of surveyors in the country, he has not sufficiently explained how he will 
4 
positively impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move the U.S. economy on 
a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. It is also important to note that the shortage 
of surveyors does not render the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nationally important under the 
Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. 
Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
The Petitioner claims his proposed endeavor will have substantial economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. The Petitioner must, however, still demonstrate the potential 
prospective impact of his specific endeavor in that area of national importance. It is insufficient to 
claim an endeavor will have substantial economic effects or will create a broad impact without 
providing evidence to corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
2010). 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and also hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his 
eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. See INS v. 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5