dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Welding

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 25, 2024 In Re: 31653641 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a welder, seeks classification 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 seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner does not qualify for classification as an individual of exceptional ability; however, the 
Director did not specify whether, in the alternative, the Petitioner qualifies for classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The Director also concluded that the 
Petitioner 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 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 ofChristo'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 a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree 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. 
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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance; (2) that 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. 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). 
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. 
See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director concluded that the Petitioner does not qualify for classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability; however, the Director did not specify whether, in the alternative, the 
Petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See 
section 203(b )(2) of the Act. The record does not clarify why the Director addressed whether the 
Petitioner may qualify for a national interest waiver if he was ineligible for second-preference 
classification, as the Director concluded. 
Because we nevertheless find that the record does not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a 
job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest, we reserve our opinion 
regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies second-preference eligibility criteria. See section 203(b )(2) 
of the Act; see also 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"); 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). 
In a document that purports to be a business plan, the Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan "to 
work for a U.S. company in need of skilled welders like himself and to contribute to the company's 
growth with his exceptional welding abilities and knowledge." The document further states that the 
Petitioner "intends to transfer his welding expertise to other workers at that company who want to 
improve their welding skills." The document also describes the Petitioner's qualifications, and it 
provides generalized information regarding the welding industry and related topics. The document 
does not indicate that the Petitioner plans to found and operate his own business, as a business plan 
would indicate. Therefore, despite its title, the document that purports to be a business plan is a 
personal statement. 
The Director acknowledged that the record "has established that the proposed endeavor is of 
substantial merit." The Director also acknowledged a letter of support written by the Petitioner's 
current supervisor, which informs how the Petitioner's work is important to his current employer. 
However, the Director observed that, other than a "personal business plan, no additional documentary 
evidence was provided in the [ request for evidence] response in relation to any proposed services that 
2 
the [P]etitioner might provide that would impact the welding field more broadly." The Director 
discussed the personal statement that purports to be a business plan and the generalized information 
regarding the welding industry and related topics, noted above. The Director reiterated that the record 
does not establish how the "proposed endeavor has implications beyond his employer ( or prospective 
employer), their business partners, alliances, and/or clients/customers and his prospective colleagues 
or workplace at a level sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of his endeavor." The 
Director further noted that the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers, how it may have substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area, or other indicia of national importance, referencing the 
first Dhanasar prong. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Therefore, the Director 
concluded the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have national importance, as 
required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. The Director further concluded that the record satisfies 
the second Dhanasar prong but that it does not satisfy the third Dhanasar prong. See id. at 888-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that the personal statement that purports to be a business plan, noted 
above, establishes that the proposed endeavor has national importance. The Petitioner also 
summarizes generalized information regarding the welding industry and related topics. 
We further note that, on appeal, the Petitioner submits an unsigned, undated, one-page letter that 
purports to be written by his child, "hidden from my father." Nevertheless, the Petitioner specifically 
swore upon filing the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, "I reviewed and understand all of 
the information contained in, and submitted with, my form," directly contradicting the letter's 
statement that it was submitted without the Petitioner's knowledge, which reduces the letter's 
credibility. Consequently, the doubt cast on the letter's credibility reduces the reliability of other 
evidence in the record. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (providing that doubt 
cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition). Conversely, if the letter were truly "hidden 
from my father," as it asserts, the letter's inclusion in the appeal submission would make the 
Petitioner's sworn statement, "I reviewed and understand all of the information in, and submitted with, 
my form," untruthful. Deceptive statements can carry substantial penalties in an immigration benefit 
request context. See, e.g., section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(a)(6)(C)(i) (providing 
that fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact submitted in an attempt to procure a visa or 
other immigration benefits triggers inadmissibility). Regardless of which statement is true and which 
is untrue, the unsigned, undated letter that purports to be written by the Petitioner's child does not 
provide probative information material to the issue of whether the proposed endeavor may have 
national importance; therefore, we need not address it further. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on 
"the speci fie endeavor that the [ non citizen] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential 
prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by 
the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or those with 
"significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
3 
The generalized information regarding the welding industry and related topics, which the Petitioner 
references on appeal, do not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes 
to undertake, and how the endeavor may have the type of broader implications indicative of national 
importance. For example, the generalized information does not address how the specific endeavor the 
Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications within the field of 
welding, or any other field, "such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes 
or medical advances." See id. As another example, the generalized information does not address how 
the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have substantial positive economic 
effects, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers." See id. 
As noted above, the personal statement that purports to be a business plan specifically states that the 
Petitioner plans "to work for a U.S. company in need of skilled welders like himself and to contribute 
to the company's growth with his exceptional welding abilities and knowledge." The document 
further states that the Petitioner "intends to transfer his welding expertise to other workers at that 
company who want to improve their welding skills." The document establishes that the proposed 
endeavor may benefit the Petitioner's current and future employer(s), the clients and customers of the 
Petitioner's current and future employer( s ), and whatever coworkers to whom the Petitioner may 
transfer his generalized "welding expertise." However, the record does not establish how the 
Petitioner's "work for a U.S. company in need of skilled welders" may have the type of broader 
implications indicative of national importance. For example, the record does not establish how the 
Petitioner's "work for a U.S. company in need of skilled welders" may have national or even global 
implications within the field of welding, or any other field, "such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." See id. The record also does not establish 
how the Petitioner, as a single welder working for-presumably-one employer at a time, may have 
"significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. See 
id. We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. 
See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. As noted above, 
we also reserve our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the Petitioner is eligible for 
second-preference classification. See id. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4