Engineering: infrastructure consulting
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance under the first Dhanasar prong, and it reserved the remaining arguments, including eligibility for the underlying advanced degree classification.
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
An engineer who planned to open an infrastructure consulting firm for small and medium construction companies appealed the denial of his EB-2 petition with a national interest waiver request. The AAO concluded that his evidence, including industry articles, recommendation and expert letters, and a business plan with unexplained job and revenue projections, did not show that this specific business would matter nationally. It declined to consider a construction company added after filing. The appeal was dismissed on the first prong, and the other prongs and the advanced degree question were reserved.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| Prong 1: Substantial merit and national importance | Not met | Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's |
| Prong 2: Well positioned to advance the endeavor | Not reached | we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments |
| Prong 3: Balance favors waiving the job offer | Not reached | we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments |
Why the AAO decided this way
- The petitioner did not describe how his consulting business would affect the engineering field beyond his own clients, and general claims about sustainability and protecting small businesses did not show national importance of his specific endeavor.
- The articles and reports did not address his specific endeavor, and the recommendation letters and the expert opinion letter mainly praised his background rather than analyzing the endeavor's potential national impact.
- The business plan's projections of 20 employees and profit growth were not explained or supported, and even if accepted they were not shown to be substantial positive economic effects of national importance.
- The AAO considered only the endeavor described in the initial filing, because adding a construction company in response to the request for evidence was a material change that could not establish eligibility as of filing.
- The AAO also remarked that the certificates of translation did not clearly identify the documents they covered, but it did not rest the decision on that point.
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)
- Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998)
- Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)
- Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015)
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