dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Autonomous Systems

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 23, 2025 In Re: 36617675 
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 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director ofthe Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he 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 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 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 Petitioner 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 his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working for as a a Software 
and System on Chip Architect. 2 He stated that his main duties in this capacity "include video hardware 
and software architecture, CPU architecture, Linux and Real Time Operating System architecture, 
Autonomous Vehicles systems software architecture and design." 3 
The Petitioner indicated that his proposed endeavor involves "the specialized field of Autonomous 
Systems." He stated that "[h]]e plans to advance his endeavor by advancing architecture and developments 
in autonomous driving and driver assistance." The Petitioner initially provided a personal statement 
explaining that he intends "to further work on autonomous vehicle systems and their subsystems, such as 
- automotive System-on-Chip design, Video and Optical path of Sensors and autonomous embedded 
systems architecture." He further asserted: 
My work on designing computationally powerful hardware, on integration of new sensors 
and the focus on fail-safe operation is directly aimed to decrease the likelihood of 
accidents, thus protecting Public Health. 
I plan to further the National Interest of the United States by focusing on architecture of 
chips on smaller transistor technologies. . . . I am planning to work on a safety software 
concept definition which will complement the safety hardware features of the system .... 
My cybersecurity focus will grow beyond MIPI protocols, covering other in-car 
communication protocols, such as - Ethernet. This field is challenging in vehicles, since 
the growing traffic bandwidth, the ongoing demand for security protocols such as 
MACsec and IPsec and automotive limitations, e.g. low latency and CPU load. I am 
planning to work on hardware/software architecture solutions for these use-cases.... In 
2 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from 
a specific U.S. employer. However, we will consider information about his position to illustrate the capacity in which he 
intends to work in order to determine whether the proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar framework. 
The record includes a February 2024 letter from IExecutive Vice President stating: "[The Petitioner] is 
employed byl las a principal engineer and senior hardware architect at platform group since 
April 1, 2022. [The Petitioner] informed us that he intends to relocate ... to the U.S.... and continue his work for 
lin the U.S .... [W]e would be able to extend the job offer to him for the same role under our U.S. legal entity 
I 
2 
3 
addition, I am going to explore a new generation of automotive Video sensors which are 
Ethernet based. This work will include proof-of-concepts, integration and new system 
architecture. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner stated: 
I plan to further the National Interest of the United States by focusing on architecture of 
hardware and software for SAE Level 5 vehicles . . . . I plan to work on a new chip 
generation which can handle much more sensors (e.g. Cameras, Lidar and Radars) 
bandwidth then a Level 2-4 car. I am planning to add support for Automotive Ethernet 
based sensors, which will reduce costs and simplify autonomous vehicle systems. . . . I 
am planning to work on an embedded hardware engine for these use-cases, which will 
protect the drivers from cyber-attacks. 
I am planning to expand the security efforts towards automotive displays - infotainment 
systems, e-mirrors, etc. 
The Petitioner's appellate submission includes information about ISystem-on-Chip 
andl Iits Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), its partnership with II on automated driving functions, and its collaboration withl land 
on ADAS. 
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 Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. We agree. 
The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his 
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 
his proposed work. 4 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision disregarded the January 2022 USCIS 
policy update relating to national interest waivers sought by persons with advanced science, 
4 The Director stated that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor stands to "have an impact or benefit 
beyond the contribution you make to your individual employer." 
3 
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees. 5 While the policy update explains how 
the Dhanasar framework can apply to STEM graduates and entrepreneurs, the Petitioner still must 
meet the three prongs set forth in Dhanasar to establish it is in the national interest that USCIS waive 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus the labor certification. We agree that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor involves STEM technologies and has substantial merit in relation to U.S. science and 
technology interests, but he must also demonstrate that it has sufficiently broad potential implications 
to demonstrate national importance. 
The Petitioner submitted articles on the importance of ensuring U.S. leadership in automated vehicle 
technologies, advancements in autonomous vehicles, the autonomous driving market, supporting 
international education, maintaining our country's leadership in science and technology, and driving 
assistance technology and its safety potential. The record also includes information about U.S. critical 
and emerging technologies, security concerns and challenges for developing software in the field of 
autonomous vehicles, the U.S. Department of Transportation's (USDOT) plan and role relating to 
automated vehicles, System on a Chip, the Federal Highway Administration's strategic goals and 
plans, the USDOT's Safe System Approach, and the Biden-Harris Administration's actions to attract 
STEM talent. 6 The Petitioner claims that these articles support the national importance of his 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 Petitioner or his planned projects, or 
otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also argues that the Director's decision did not offer "any substantive analysis of the 
letters of support" from A-K-, J-G-, C-E-, L-S-, E-K-, D-R-, and R-W- who mainly discuss the 
Petitioner's software and hardware architecture and development capabilities and experience. The 
Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance 
under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
Regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's prospective impact, C-E- asserts that the Petitioner's 
"prospects for future contributions in the area of Autonomous Vehicles are enormous." In addition, 
L-S- contends that the Petitioner "will unquestionably continue to make significant contributions to 
the progress of autonomous vehicles." Likewise, D-R- expresses confidence that the Petitioner's 
"continued work in the United States will contribute significantly to the technological progress and 
competitive edge of the nation's autonomous vehicle sector." Similarly, A-K- opines that the 
Petitioner's "ongoing work will continue to contribute significantly to the growth and innovation 
within our sector." Moreover, R-W- indicates that the Petitioner's work relating "to the architecture 
of Secure communication and control protocols in Autonomous Vehicles and Advanced Driver­
Assistance Systems will help create more secure transportation and increase the reliability and safety 
of Autonomous Vehicles used around the country." 
5 The Petitioner received a Master of Science degree in Computer Science from _________ in 2010. 
A Petitioner's education, however, is a factor considered under Dhanasar 's second prong. Id. at 890 
6 With respect to Dhanasar's 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/policy­
manual. 
4 
While the Petitioner's proposed endeavor contributes to his employer and its business partners' hardware 
and software architecture projects, he has not provided evidence demonstrating that his proposed work 
would affect his industry or field at level indicative of national importance. It is insufficient to claim 
an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to 
substantiate such claims. The letters from A-K-, J-G-, C-E-, L-S-, E-K-, D-R-, and R-W- do not 
contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating 
evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work offers broader implications in his field 
or industry or substantial positive economic effects for our nation that rise to the level of national 
importance. Benefits rendered to a specific employer and its business partners alone, even an 
employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's 
particular endeavor has national importance. 
The Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor has national importance on the basis that it 
contributes to autonomous vehicle and driver assistance technologies. He asserts that his undertaking 
improves road safety and vehicle technologies and therefore offers national or global implications. 
The Petitioner further argues that even ifhe "is working for a company, he is contributing to the overall 
goal of improving traffic safety." While I I provides autonomous driving and driver assist 
technologies to multiple automobile manufacturers, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
I !technological advancements would be attributable to his role as a Software and System on 
Chip Architect to an extent that his specific proposed work holds national importance. The Petitioner 
has not shown that his undertaking stands to offer broader implications in his field or industry beyond 
his hardware and software projects forl land its business partnerships. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide hardware and software architecture services for 
his employer, he has n ot offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of his 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 
Petitioner has not shown that his specific proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his 
employer and its business partners to impact his field, the automotive industry, U.S. public safety, or 
our country's economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional 
or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's projects would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner has not established that his 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. 
5 
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated 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 his eligibility under the second and 
third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 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 Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established he 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. 
6