dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Automotive Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 02, 2025 In Re: 35360929 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification for the 
Beneficiary 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Beneficiary 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the 
Petitioner had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 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 dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification
, a petitioner must establish the beneficiary is an 
advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. If a petitioner establishes the beneficiary's eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate that the beneficiary merits a discretionary 
waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
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 Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature) . 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
At the time of filing, the Beneficiary was working for the Petitioner as a Design Release Engineer. 2 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary's responsibilities in this capacity include: 
• Plan and lead displays systems Product Development and Quality Teams meetings with 
international suppliers from China, Taiwan, India, and the Middle East, for current and 
future Global B platform vehicles Global B digital vehicle platform vehicles. 
• Ensure 3.8, 4.2, 7, 8, 10, 12.6 & 13.4 inch Global B vehicle display systems design 
solutions developed by Tier I/II suppliers comply with I I worldwide 
engineering standards as defined in the general specification for electrical/electronic 
components - environmental/ durability I I This also includes new 11, 
11.34, and 17.7 inch displays. 
• Participate in display systems production release, tooling, kickoff, and Integration 
Vehicle Engineering Release (IVER) vehicle build activities. 
• Engage, participate, and review issues related to Radiated Emission (RE), Conducted 
Emission (CE), Radiated Immunity (RI), Conducted Immunity (CI) and Electrostatic 
Discharge (ESD); create, define, and implement test plans for display systems to meet 
quality and cost requirements; and participate and review design issues related to 
Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC). 
• Analyze, address, and collaborate on solutions to technical and safety issues related to 
display systems, including displays, electronic Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs ), knob 
units, rotary holders, Fully Integrated Display Modules (FIDMs), mechanical parts, 
brackets, protect sheets, cushions, covers, and Integrated Center Stack (ICSs), for 
saleable vehicle programs. 
• Monitor and participate in display systems design and release process on vehicle 
programs. 
• Approve Component Technical Specification (CTS) documents, and ensure that 
display systems specifications follow I I requirements and guidelines, 
regulatory requirements and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) guidelines for 
2 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for the Beneficiary to have a 
job offer from a specific employer. However, we will consider information about her position to illustrate the capacity in 
which she intends to work in order to determine whether the proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
2 
inclusion in the Statement of Requirement's (SOR) packages sent to Tier I suppliers as 
part of the sourcing process. 
• Participate and coach Displays Engineers to solve issues and meet product and 
quality requirements. 
• Recommend design changes for display projects related to continuing/future global 
semiconductor shortages. Use tools such as Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing 
(GD&T), Computer Aided Engineering (CAE), Computer Aided Design (CAD), 
Global Vehicle Development Process (GVDP), Design for Manufacturing (DFM), 
Design for Assembly (DF A), Design Failure Mode & Effects Analysis (DFMEA), 
Design Review Based upon Test Results (DRBTR), Red X, Design for Six Sigma 
(DFSS). 
• Initiate, create and approve Engineering Change Requests (ECRs) for Fully Integrated 
Display Modules (FIDM). 
• Review ECRs such as changes to components in the printed circuit board (PCB), 
changes to cost, processes, site location, and materials. 
• Approve and review visual change document (VDC) created by international suppliers 
to ensure their proposal meets _____ _.requirements. 
• Approve and. review the Part Submission Warrant (PSW), which is a document that 
compares current components and future components changes to specific designs. 
• Ensure part performance meets mass, cost, and timing for the U.S., global, and 
emerging markets. Use and apply optimization techniques, Design of Experiments 
(DOE), and Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) to develop solutions and root cause display 
issues. 
• Review and approve! product specifications and all documents related 
to the technology readiness process. 
• Use Problem Resolution and Tracking System (PRTS) to solve technical issues in five 
steps: definition, preliminary root cause, root cause, solution, and implementation. 
• Request and approve Temporary Work Order (TWO) in cases where a temporary 
change is required. 
• Work with purchasing team to ensure suppliers are within exacting engineering 
requirements including quality and cost. 
• Work closely with mechanical and electrical engineers and management for future 
display design and roadmaps. 
• Work with appearance studio and materials engineering to identify solutions for 
achieving finish, color, and gloss of materials. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor, the Petitioner initially indicated that she intended to 
"specialize in product development in the automotive field related to electrical design, management 
and testing, with a specialty in Engineering." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), 
the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary planned "to leverage her expertise in electrical system design, 
testing, and implementation specific to Electric Vehicles (EV) and Software Defined Vehicles (SDV) 
in order to further promote and advance 'Zero Crashes, Zero Emissions, & Zero Congestion' within 
the United States." 
The Petitioner submitted a February 2024 letter from its Engineering Group Manager, H-C-, stating: 
3 
[The Beneficiary] is responsible for a project called I I This project aims 
to have everything in 2027 display design be resilient. This includes Semiconductors 
and Microelectronics. In addition, the displays she designs, and releases are featured 
in numerous [Petitioner] vehicles that are currently in production and others already on 
the road, providing customers with the pleasure of interacting with smart screens in 
their cars. 
Currently, [the Beneficiary] is leading a vehicle lines [sic] and proving much needed 
to support to [the Petitioner's] Gen 1 displays. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. Id. The Director determined the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. We agree. 
The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the 
Beneficiary's proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. at 889. This consideration may include 
whether the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an 
economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even 
global implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. 
Id. at 889-90. The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish the potential prospective impact 
of the Beneficiary's proposed work. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands to have a "direct 
impact on Electric Vehicle advancement and autonomous technologies for Software Defined Vehicles 
for the many tens of millions of Americans who use [the Petitioner's] vehicles." In addition, the 
Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's undertaking is "critical to U.S. national importance and directly 
impacts supply resiliency as it applies to semiconductors and microelectronics." The Petitioner points 
to a June 2024 letter from H-C- provided in response to the RFE, who stated: 
As a design release engineer, [the Beneficiary's] core objective is to plan and lead 
displays systems Product Development and Quality team meetings with international 
suppliers from China, Taiwan, India, and the Middle East, for current and future Global 
B digital vehicle platform vehicles. [The Beneficiary's] work is critical to U.S. national 
importance because under I I she aims to make every vehicle display 
resilient by 2027, using microelectronics and semiconductors. This not only positions 
the United States as a leader in automotive technology but also fosters the growth of a 
skilled and innovative workforce. Furthermore, her designs are featured in numerous 
[Petitioner] vehicles that are currently in production, as well as others already on the 
4 
road providing customers with the ease of smart screens, arguably improving the 
quality of life of American consumers, which ties directly to national interests. 
H-C- further indicated that the Beneficiary's work contributes to U.S. innovation and competitiveness, 
supply chain stability, semiconductor management, cybersecurity and safety, regulatory standards 
compliance, skill development, and sustainability. The Petitioner, however, has not shown the 
Beneficiary's specific projects as a design release engineer stand to impact these areas to an extent 
that her proposed work holds national importance. While the Beneficiary's proposed work may affect 
the Petitioner's display systems' supply resiliency as it applies to semiconductors and 
microelectronics, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her undertaking's broader implications in the 
field or industry. It is insufficient to claim a proposed endeavor has national importance or would 
create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims. 
The Petitioner also provided an "Analysis and Advisory Evaluation" letter from Dr. H-D-, Associate 
Professor at the I Iin support of the Beneficiary's 
national interest waiver. Dr. H-D- contends that the Beneficiary's proposed work is of national 
importance because her generic occupation of automotive engineer and the industry in which she 
works stand to benefit the U.S. economy. The issue here, however, is not the national importance of 
the profession or industry in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The letters 
from Dr. H-D- and H-C- do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record 
include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Beneficiary's specific proposed work offers 
broader implications in her field or industry or substantial positive economic effects for our nation that 
rise to the level of national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted articles on the importance of automotive design and 
engineering, information technology, transportation systems, advanced computing, autonomous 
systems and robotics, communication and networking technologies, semiconductors and 
microelectronics, the software-defined vehicle ecosystem, Application Programming Interface 
Management and Cloud Connectivity, Electric Delivery Vehicles, the Petitioner's U.S. economic 
impact, and consumer data protection. The record also includes information about U.S. critical 
infrastructure sectors, critical and emerging technologies, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and 
protecting the U.S. automotive industry. The Petitioner claims that these articles support the national 
importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor. The determination of national importance does 
not focus on the importance of one's field or industry in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Here, none of the articles mention the 
Beneficiary or her assigned projects, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of her 
specific proposed endeavor. 
While the Petitioner states on appeal that "millions of Americans drive or ride in its vehicles" and that 
it "has long been a pillar of the nation's economy," the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
economic implications and technological advancements resulting from its overall operations would be 
attributable to the Beneficiary's particular role as a Design Release Engineer to an extent that her 
specific proposed work holds national importance. The Petitioner further claims that the Beneficiary's 
"endeavor directly impacts electrification and automation efforts across the United States and around 
the world," but the evidence does not show that her proposed work stands to offer broader implications 
5 
in her field or industry beyond her projects for the Petitioner. The issue here is not the broader 
implications of her company's innovations in electrification technologies relating to EVs and SDVs, 
but rather the potential prospective impact of the Beneficiary's specific work. 3 
To evaluate whether the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. Id. at 
889. While the Petitioner's statements reflect the Beneficiary's intention to provide electrical system 
design, testing, and implementation services for her employer, it has not offered sufficient information 
and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of 
national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise 
to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. 
at 893. Here, we conclude the record does not show that the Beneficiary's specific proposed endeavor 
stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer and its operations to impact the field of engineering, 
the U.S. automotive manufacturing industry, societal welfare, public safety, or our country' s economy 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated 
that the Beneficiary 's specific undertaking offers broader implications in the semiconductor , 
microelectronics, artificial intelligence, optical components, automation technology, or renewable 
energy industries. 
Additionally, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor the Beneficiary proposes to 
undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. While the Petitioner asserts that the national importance of the 
Beneficiary's endeavor is evident from the scope of its vehicle manufacturing operations, it has not 
demonstrated that the economic implications of its vehicle sales would be attributable to the 
Petitioner's specific projects to an extent that her proposed work holds national importance. Here, the 
Petitioner has not shown that the wider economic effects it claims are implications of the Beneficiary 's 
specific proposed endeavor to provide electrical system design, testing, and implementation services 
for her employer. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation attributable to the Beneficiary's specific proposed work, the Petitioner has not 
shown that the benefits to the U.S . regional or national economy resulting from her projects would reach 
the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 's proposed endeavor has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive 
economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field or industry, or has other 
broader implications indicating national importance. 
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the Beneficiary's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated her eligibility for a national interest waiver. As this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we need not reach, and therefore reserve, determination of the Beneficiary's 
eligibility under the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
3 The evidence does not indicate, for example, that the Beneficiary is an inventor of the Petitioner's EV or SDV system 
technologies or that she publishes or presents electrical systems research. 
6 
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Beneficiary has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7