Civil engineering and real estate technology: affordable housing
The AAO dismissed the appeal: it withdrew SCOPS' favorable finding on national importance, agreed with SCOPS that the petitioner was not well positioned, and reserved the third prong.
Summarized by AI. Summaries on this site are written by AI and can contain errors. Always read the full decision on uscis.gov before relying on anything here. If a summary differs from the official decision, the official decision controls.
Summary
A civil engineer and entrepreneur proposed a company applying construction technology to affordable housing and appealed a SCOPS denial of his EB-2 national interest waiver petition. SCOPS had found national importance but not that he was well positioned; the AAO withdrew the first finding, reasoning that the letters, business plans and job projections had not sufficiently shown the endeavor's prospective impact at a national level. It then agreed with SCOPS's conclusion on the second prong, while withdrawing SCOPS's reasoning, noting that the record lacked documentation of steps taken to launch the company or of customer and investor interest. The third prong was reserved and the appeal dismissed.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| Prong 1: Substantial merit and national importance | Not met | Petitioner did not sufficiently establish national importance of his endeavor. The Petitioner has shown |
| Prong 2: Well positioned to advance the endeavor | Not met | We therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not met the second prong of Dhanasar. |
| Prong 3: Balance favors waiving the job offer | Not reached |
Why the AAO decided this way
- The AAO accepted that affordable housing has substantial merit but withdrew SCOPS' finding that national importance was shown, because the letters did not explain what the innovative technologies were or how they would be applied.
- Staffing, payroll and sales projections, and a national job multiplier, were not supported by an explanation of how they were calculated or tied to this endeavor, and the record did not show operations in economically depressed areas.
- On the second prong, the AAO withdrew SCOPS' reasoning, including its reliance on the lack of a U.S. engineering license, but agreed with its conclusion.
- The record lacked documentation of progress such as forming the business, securing funding or hiring, and did not show interest from customers or investors beyond general letters; because the first two prongs were dispositive, the third prong was reserved.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015)
- Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016)
- Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)
Read the full decision on uscis.gov ↗
Please describe the error only. Do not send personal or case information. Anything you send will not be treated as confidential, and an error report does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Report an error in this summary