dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Automotive Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 12, 2024 In Re: 34818313 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an automotive service technician and mechanic, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as anational 
interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(national interest waiver), concluding 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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
USCIS may deny a benefit request accepted for adjudication if there is a deficient signature. See 
generally 1 USCIS Policy Manual B.2(A), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (providing, as 
guidance, "[i]f USCIS accepts a request for adjudication and later determines that it has a deficient 
signature, USCIS denies the request.") In order to maintain the integrity of the immigration benefit 
system and validate the identity of benefit requestors, USCIS requires a valid signature on 
applications, petitions, requests, and certain other documents filed with USCIS. Id. USCIS does not 
accept signatures created by a typewriter, word processor, stamp, auto-pen, or similar device. Id. at 
B.2(B) (explaining, as guidance, the requirements for a valid signature). 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are 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 eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit 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 l&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 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
11. ANALYSIS 
A. Signature 
The Petitioner filed this Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, indicating he is appealing the 
Director's denial of his national interest waiver. Part 4, question 6.a. of the Form I-290B seeks the 
Petitioner's signature. The Petitioner's signature appears simulated, as if created by an auto-pen or 
similar device, and has the appearance of a drawing, the width of the ink is constant from start to end, 
and is unlike the signature on the Petitioner's national interest waiver and his Department of Labor 
Form ETA 750, Part B, Employment and Training Administration Application for Alien Employment 
Certification, both of which are similar to each other. 
We conclude the Petitioner's signature on appeal is simulated and not valid as per USCIS guidance. 
See generally 1 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at B.2(A), (B) (explaining, as guidance, signature 
requirements). We therefore dismiss the appeal on this basis. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
Even if the 1-290B was properly signed by the Petitioner, he would also need to establish his eligibility 
for the national interest waiver. With respect to the underlying EB-2 classification, the Petitioner 
claimed to qualify as an individual of exceptional ability. However, the Director's decision did not 
provide analysis ofthe Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification. Rather, the Director 
denied the Petitioner's national interest waiver because the Petitioner had not demonstrated that he 
merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." The Director 
found that while the Petitioner had established the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor, he had 
not established that his proposed endeavor was nationally important under Dhanasar's first prong, that 
he was well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong, and that, 
on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States under Dhanasar's third 
prong. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in 
concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
Because we similarly conclude the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong, which is dispositive of this appeal, we reserve the 
issues of whether the Petitioner has established his eligibility under the second and third Dhanasar 
prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to 
make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also 
Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on 
appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. In his national 
interest waiver, the Petitioner identified his occupation as an automotive service technician and 
mechanic. The Petitioner submitted two personal statements titled "Professional Plan and Statement" 
dated September 2022 and March 2023. Within the statements he described his proposed endeavor as 
intending to work as a process toolmaker2 and quality control inspector for U.S. automotive companies 
to improve productivity, product quality, and manufacturing efficiency by using in-line Perceptron 
measurement sensors to provide efficient vehicle dimensional measurements in the production line 
and to ensure U.S. manufacturing facilities remain competitive while providing consumers with safe 
automobiles. To advance his endeavor he states he will: automate and program robots and sensors 
with the required measuring points to ensure dimensional control of bodies and platforms; inspect the 
quality of vehicle parts produced in the factory and by suppliers according to the model design and 
measurements provided by the engineering team; create customized devices for joining car body and 
platform parts for new vehicle models; identify problems in the production line in the event of 
programming errors in the robots; and produce and present process capability reports with 
performance metrics and potential capability for managers, measuring consistency against average 
performance. He also noted that his expertise can also be applied to electrical car manufacturing. 
As noted above, the Director determined the Petitioner established his proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider 
its potential prospective impact. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we noted 
that, in assessing national importance, "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor 
and that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even 
global implications within a particular field." Id at 890. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national 
importance." Id. 
The Director reviewed the Petitioner's evidence, including his personal statements, documents 
evidencing U.S. government priorities, and his advisory opinion letter, and determined that the 
Petitioner had not established that his proposed endeavor would have implications beyond any 
individual employer and its business partners or clients, or other related entities for which he would 
provide his services, to demonstrate his proposed endeavor would have broader implications in his 
field or industry. The Director further found the Petitioner had not established that his proposed 
2 According to the Petitioner, process toolmakers work closely with engineering and design teams analyzing technical 
drawings, specifications, and computer aided design to develop designs for tools, molds, and perform dimensional 
measurements. He included a copy of the O*NET OnLine Summary Repo1t for "1351-4111.00 - Tool and Die Makers," 
which support his description of process toolmakers. 
3 
endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or would otherwise offer substantial 
positive economic effects for the U.S. regional or national economy as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
On appeal the Petitioner submits a brief and documents from the underlying record. He asserts that 
the Director did not consider that his proposed endeavor impacts matters that U.S. government entities 
have described as having national importance, such as smart manufacturing and cleaner energy 
alternatives for the automotive industry, including Electric Vehicles (EV)s. However, the matter here 
is not whether these initiatives are nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the 
national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his services as a process toolmaker 
and quality control inspector for U.S. automotive companies is nationally important. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director did not consider the support letters he submitted below, 
identifying three specifically, which he claims establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. However, the authors of the letters limit their analysis to the Petitioner's contributions to 
his employer, the plant in Brazil. While, at times, the authors of the letters 
extrapolated that the Petitioner's work impacted the overall company ofl Ithe letters do 
not demonstrate the broader impact of his work in the field or industry. For example, one author 
described how the Petitioner's expertise with using and troubleshooting in-line Perceptron 
measurement sensors enabled the _____ ___,plant to eliminate the cost of hiring Perceptron, 
an outside company, to perform programming of its sensors for the plant, thereby saving I 
money. Another author stated, for example, the Petitioner's programming for measurement points 
contributed to the finest vehicle ever seen byl IHowever, the author did not provide detail 
on how the Petitioner's role as one process toolmaker programming for measurement points in one 
plant contributed to the success of this vehicle. Moreover, even if the letters supported the broader 
impact of his work for Ithe letters do not demonstrate how his proposed endeavor would 
offer benefits extending beyond his employer to impact the field of automotive manufacturing more 
broadly. In addition, the support letters cover the Petitioner's prior work and accomplishments and 
relate more to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner also asserts that his proposed endeavor will introduce and disseminate innovative tools 
and robotic mechanisms to the automotive industry, and will, for example, ensure precise 
measurements and parts assembly, contributing to the quality and efficiency of EV manufacturing. 
The Dhanasar decision contemplates that "[a]n unde1iaking may have national impmiance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. at 893. However, 
the Petitioner has not established the extent to which his proposed endeavor's methods of, for example, 
using in-line Perceptron measurement sensors improves upon those already available and in use in the 
United States such that his proposed endeavor would have national or global implications within his 
field or for the United States. 
The Petitioner further contends that his endeavor falls within a STEM (Science, Technology, 
Engineering, or Mathematics) profession. With respect to the first prong, as in all cases, the evidence 
must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (providing, as 
guidance, specific evidentiary considerations for persons in STEM fields). Many proposed endeavors 
4 
that aim to advance STEM technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, not 
only have substantial merit in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, but also have 
sufficiently broad potential implications to demonstrate national importance. Id. On the other hand, 
while proposed classroom teaching activities in STEM, for example, may have substantial merit in 
relation to U.S. educational interests, such activities, by themselves, generally are not indicative of an 
impact in the field of STEM education more broadly, and therefore generally would not establish their 
national importance. Id. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his endeavor aims to advance STEM 
technologies and research or has broad implications rather than providing his limited professional 
services by working within a STEM profession. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Director overlooked the positive economic impacts of his proposed 
endeavor. However, on appeal, the Petitioner does not explain how the Director overlooked the 
positive economic impacts and how his proposed endeavor would have significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or would otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the U.S. regional or 
national economy. Accordingly, we need not address this assertion. Cf. Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 
234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (declining to address a "passing reference" to an argument in a brief that did not 
provide legal support). 
Based on our de nova review of the record, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that, beyond the limited 
benefits provided to his prospective employer, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader 
implications in the field of automobile manufacturing or that it has the significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area for instance, rising to the level of national importance. Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor under the first Dhanasar prong, 
and therefore has not established that he merits, as a matter of discretion, a national interest waiver of 
the job offer requirement attached to this classification. 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's 1-290B does not contain a valid signature as per USCIS guidance. In addition, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5