This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish that her proposed construction and civil engineering services business had national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The projected economic benefits were unsupported by independent, corroborating evidence.
The petitioner, a civil engineer and construction manager from Brazil, filed an EB-2 NIW petition proposing to run a construction and civil engineering services company in Florida. While USCIS accepted that she met the advanced degree professional requirement, the AAO agreed with the Director that her proposed endeavor did not rise to national importance under the first Dhanasar prong. Her business plan projecting four direct jobs, 70 indirect jobs, and over $8 million in revenue lacked corroborating independent evidence, and submitted articles and an expert letter focused on the construction industry broadly rather than the specific prospective impact of her proposed business. Because the first Dhanasar prong was dispositive, the AAO declined to address the second and third prongs and dismissed the appeal.
What worked: The petitioner successfully established eligibility as an advanced degree professional by demonstrating a foreign engineering degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience in civil engineering.
What failed: 1. The business plan's economic projections (jobs created, revenue generated) were not supported by independent or corroborating evidence, making them insufficient to establish national importance. 2. General articles about immigrants' contributions to the U.S. economy were not specific to the petitioner's proposed endeavor. 3. The expert opinion letter focused on the importance of the construction industry generally and the petitioner's qualifications, rather than the broader prospective impact of her specific business.
Takeaway: For NIW petitions based on a new business, petitioners must provide independent, corroborating evidence—such as market analyses, third-party economic studies, or confirmed contracts—that ties their specific proposed endeavor to measurable national-level impact, not just general industry importance or unverified projections. Personal qualifications and experience are relevant to Dhanasar's second prong, not the first prong's national importance requirement.
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 eligibility as an advanced degree professional by demonstrating a foreign engineering degree equivalent to a U.S
- bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience in civil engineering.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The business plan's economic projections (jobs created, revenue generated) were not supported by independent or corroborating evidence, making them insufficient to establish national importance
- General articles about immigrants' contributions to the U.S
- economy were not specific to the petitioner's proposed endeavor
- The expert opinion letter focused on the importance of the construction industry generally and the petitioner's qualifications, rather than the broader prospective impact of her specific business.
Petitioner's foreign engineering degree from a Brazilian university with academic transcripts and employer letters, establishing she holds the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in civil engineering plus five years of progressive experience (satisfying the advanced degree professional requirement)
Business plan projecting four direct jobs, 70 indirect jobs, and over eight million dollars in revenue — found unsupported by independent, corroborating evidence
Articles on the general economic benefits of immigrants and immigrant entrepreneurs — not specific to petitioner's proposed endeavor
Expert opinion letter from an adjunct mathematics professor focusing on the importance of the construction industry generally and petitioner's qualifications, rather than the prospective national impact of her specific proposed endeavor
General assertions about generating taxes, attracting foreign investors, and benefiting economically deprived areas in Florida — lacked direct evidentiary tie to claimed economic results
The Director found that waiving the job offer would not be beneficial to the United States under Dhanasar prong three but provided no analytical explanation for that conclusion.
Completed
I-140 filed
Construction manager and civil engineer proposing to operate a construction and civil engineering services business in Florida
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2023-10-18
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish that her proposed construction and civil engineering services business had national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The projected economic benefits were unsupported by independent, corroborating evidence.
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