remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24227508 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 13, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a civil engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 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, 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 
1 See also 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) . 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 However, he stated, "You have not provided sufficient evidence to show that you can meet 
any of the [Dhanasar] prongs. Therefore, you are not eligible for, and do not merit, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion." 
The Petitioner holds an undergraduate degree in civil engineering and he states that he has "over 22 
years of experience working in the petrochemical, oil, industrial, commercial, and naval industries." 
His work has included "project management, construction management, quality control, production 
processes, inspection, economic feasibility, resource management, business administration, strategic 
planning, and leadership." He states that his construction projects include bridges, a penitentiary, city 
buildings, refinery buildings, and a shipyard platform. The Petitioner describes his proposed endeavor 
as follows: 
My career plan in the United States is to work with American civil engineering 
companies for the Oil & Gas or Industrial sectors that require my specialized 
knowledge, acute experience, and expertise as a Civil Engineer. I intend to continue 
implementing valuable services in constructing and renovating structures and large­
scale projects in the petrochemical, oil, industrial, commercial, and naval areas. These 
projects specifically include the construction and improvement of oil refineries. 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of his education and experience, a professional 
plan and statement describing his proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a national interest 
waiver, an expert opinion letter, recommendation letters, industry reports on industrial manufacturing 
and infrastructure, and articles discussing the shortage and demand in the field of engineering broadly. 
Upon review, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit or national importance, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to 
the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. The 
Director did not discuss whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor 
under the second Dhanasar prong. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director "imposed novel substantive and evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations." He further states that the Director violated 
USCIS policy in denying the petition without first issuing a request for evidence and providing an 
opportunity to "present additional evidence and cure any questions raised by the adjudicating officer." 
The Petitioner does not submit new evidence on appeal, but states that the Director "did not give due 
regard" to the evidence in the record and "ignored the fact that [he] is a high-skilled professional in a 
STEM [Science Engineering Technology and Mathematics] area, which is inherently nationally 
important." 
2 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in civil engineering earned 
in Brazil in 1998, followed by more than five years of progressive experience as a civil engineer. See 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
2 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director imposed a "novel standard" of proof and did not consider the 
evidence objectively. However, the Petitioner does not identify the Director's "novel standard" or 
describe how it differs from a preponderance of the evidence. 
With respect to the Petitioner's assertion that the Director did not fully review and consider all of the 
evidence in the record, we agree. In discussing whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit and national importance, the Director referenced the Petitioner's professional plan 
and statement and articles discussing the shortage and demand in the field of engineering. The 
Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his proposed endeavor will broadly 
impact the field of civil engineering or that it will have substantial positive economic effects to 
establish national importance. The Director stated, "although you highlight that there is an 
occupational shortage in the United States, such a shortage does not, by itself, establish that your work 
stands to impact the broader field or otherwise have implications rising to the level of national 
importance." However, the Director did not discuss other evidence in the record, including the expert 
opinion letter, the Petitioner's recommendation letters, and various industry reports. 
The Director did not provide any analysis or discussion of whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor. And in analyzing the third prong of Dhanasar - whether on balance, 
waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States - the Director made several 
references to evidence that the Petitioner did not submit. However, of the evidence in the record, he 
only discussed the shortage and demand articles in his analysis. The Director listed factors that may 
be considered in performing a balancing analysis, but he did not discuss the evidence he weighed in 
balancing those considerations, nor address the Petitioner's specific claims, if any, as to the third 
prong. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition to allow the Petitioner a fair 
opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate 
review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding 
that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a 
meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Therefore, we will withdraw the 
Director's decision based on this deficiency. On remand, the Director should review and fully analyze 
the entire record in considering whether the Petitioner has established eligibility under each of the 
three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to determine whether the Petitioner has 
established eligibility for a national interest waiver and to enter a new decision. The Director may 
request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination. As such, we express 
no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3