This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The projected economic impacts were too vague, unsupported, and localized to demonstrate a potential prospective national impact.
The petitioner, a treasurer and controller with over 30 years of experience in Brazil's construction industry, sought an EB-2 National Interest Waiver to work in the U.S. construction sector and eventually start his own residential development company. SCOPS denied the petition finding insufficient national importance, and the AAO agreed on appeal. The AAO found the petitioner's two materially different proposed endeavors (working for U.S. companies vs. starting his own company to build 10 homes) raised credibility concerns. The economic projections for the pilot project were unsupported, the claimed replicability and scalability were vague, and the wide-ranging assertions of impact on housing, sustainability, and global competitiveness were conclusory and lacked specific documentation. Because the first Dhanasar prong was not met, the AAO declined to address the second and third prongs.
What worked: The petitioner successfully established the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, and SCOPS and AAO both agreed the proposed endeavor had substantial merit in the business and entrepreneurialism areas.
What failed: The petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance: (1) economic projections for the 10-home pilot project were unsupported and too small relative to the $2.9 trillion construction industry; (2) the proposed endeavor lacked specificity as to how innovations would disseminate beyond the petitioner's private company; (3) claims of replicability and scalability were conclusory and undocumented; and (4) the petitioner submitted materially inconsistent descriptions of his proposed endeavor between the initial petition and the RFE response.
Takeaway: NIW petitioners in the construction and real estate sectors must provide detailed, documented business plans with specific evidence of how their work will have broader national implications beyond their own company, including third-party validation of innovative methods and concrete evidence of dissemination to the wider field. Petitioners should also maintain a consistent description of their proposed endeavor throughout the process, as material changes between filings undermine credibility.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-2-NIW criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- The petitioner successfully established the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, and SCOPS and AAO both agreed the proposed endeavor had substantial merit in the business and entrepreneurialism areas.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The petitioner failed to demonstrate national importance: (1) economic projections for the 10-home pilot project were unsupported and too small relative to the $2.9 trillion construction industry
- (2) the proposed endeavor lacked specificity as to how innovations would disseminate beyond the petitioner's private company
- (3) claims of replicability and scalability were conclusory and undocumented
- and (4) the petitioner submitted materially inconsistent descriptions of his proposed endeavor between the initial petition and the RFE response.
Petitioner's advanced degree qualifications were accepted as satisfying the underlying EB-2 classification
Proposed endeavor was found to have substantial merit in the areas of business and entrepreneurialism (first Dhanasar sub-prong only)
Employment and financial projections for the 10-home pilot project ($2.11 million local income, 32 jobs, $220,000 taxes) were found unsupported and insufficient to show national-level impact
Claims of 'replicability and scalability' were vague and not substantiated with specific plans or timelines
BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook data on financial managers did not establish national importance of the specific endeavor
Articles on STEM professionals were insufficient to demonstrate national importance of petitioner's specific proposed work
Assertions of impact on housing deficit, vertical housing, sustainable construction, and global competitiveness were conclusory and unexplained
Petitioner's 33 years of experience in Brazil as treasurer/controller was found relevant to Dhanasar's second prong but not to national importance under the first prong
Economic projections lacked clear business plans, specific geographic locations, or explanation of how the pilot project would replicate nationally
No specific legal errors by SCOPS were identified; AAO agreed with SCOPS's denial on the national importance prong
Completed
I-140 filed
Treasurer and controller in the construction industry; proposed to establish a civil engineering and residential development company specializing in construction management services
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-05-07
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The projected economic impacts were too vague, unsupported, and localized to demonstrate a potential prospective national impact.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee