dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Battery Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 20, 2024 In Re: 33960638 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a battery test engineer, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 53(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 53(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Texas 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 pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
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 establish eligibility for a 
national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish 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 the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for underlying EB-2 classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the 
Petitioner has established that 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. 2 
The Petitioner initially stated that his proposed endeavor is "to develop and optimize materials for use 
in lithium batteries and soft electronics in order to contribute to advances in the transportation and 
healthcare sectors." He indicated that he plans to continue pursuing his proposed endeavor as a battery 
test engineer at F-E-, Inc. and that his work includes designing materials for high energy density 
lithium batteries; executing laboratory tests to support battery performance analysis, safety testing, 
and quality assessment projects; analyzing research data and reporting results at an appropriate 
technical level for the intended audience, such as vendors, suppliers, and customers. He further 
indicated that his proposed endeavor is distinct from his position of employment at F-E-, Inc. and his 
employment "serves as [his] chief opportunity to pursue [his] proposed endeavor at this time." In 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner's updated statement indicated 
that his proposed endeavor is "to develop and optimize materials for lithium batteries and soft 
electronics to promote advances in the electric transportation sector and clean energy storage." He 
reiterated that his proposed endeavor is distinct from his plans for continued employment at F-E-, Inc., 
now as a senior battery engineer, and indicated that in addition to that previously listed above, his 
work also includes presenting the new technologies and research findings at conferences. 
The Director reviewed the totality of the evidence in the record, including the Petitioner's statements, 
letters of recommendation, education and credential information, specific citations, and industry 
reports and articles. 3 The Director determined that the Petitioner established the proposed endeavor's 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 The Director did not make a finding as to whether the Petitioner established that he is well-positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor or whether, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job 
offer and thus of a labor certification, the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 
3 This is a non-exhaustive list of evidence the Petitioner submitted in the record. While we may not discuss eve1y document 
submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
substantial merit but not its national importance. Regarding substantial merit, the endeavor's merits 
may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, 
culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining that the Petitioner did 
not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has a significant 
potential to impact the field of endeavor, to employ U.S. workers, or otherwise offers substantial 
positive economic effects for our nation. The Director concluded that the petitioner had not shown that 
benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his proposed endeavor would reach the 
level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. The Director noted that 
while the letters of support and expert opinion letter provided details about the Petitioner's 
accomplishments, they did not explain how the Petitioner's numerous personal accomplishments 
constitute recognition of achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field of 
engineering and lack supportive information concerning how such personal achievements affected the 
industry or field as a whole. The Director also noted that the evidence indicated the potential 
prospective impact of the petitioner's proposed activities constituting the endeavor is mainly to the 
petitioner's employer and its customers and does not demonstrate how the petitioner's specific 
endeavor has national or even global implications. The Director concluded that the petitioner had not 
shown that working for and providing his expertise to F-E-, Inc. would undoubtedly benefit the United 
States through increased income, employment of U.S. workers, and contribution to the country's gross 
domestic product (GDP). The Director further concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that his 
work has been served as an impetus for progress in the field, that it has affected the engineering field, 
or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the broader community. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates his statements in the record, provided in his initial support letter 
and personal statement, as well as his RFE response and updated statement, and claims that the 
evidence does in fact establish the substantial positive economic impact and national importance of 
the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner highlights portions of his personal statement and indicates that 
his research into lithium-ion battery optimization directly aligns with the clean energy generation and 
transportation goals of the United States, demonstrating its broader industry impact and indicating that 
the impact is not just confined to his employer and customers. He then asserts that he provided ample 
detail regarding the need for innovations in lithium battery density, especially in reducing the costs of 
electrical vehicles and meeting the U.S. Department of Energy's Battery500 Consortium's goals, 
impacting the national economic competitiveness of the United States. Further, the Petitioner claims 
that the Director's analysis reflects "the agency's failure to properly apply the law and to consider all 
of the relevant evidence[, which] constitute[s] an abuse of discretion." The Petitioner claims that the 
Director did not examine the entirety of the evidence presented and did not discuss all of the evidence 
submitted. Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the Director used an incorrect standard to assess the 
potential economic impact of the proposed endeavor and claims that the evidence does in fact establish 
the substantial positive economic impact of the proposed endeavor. 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit 
but does not satisfy the national importance element of Dhanasar' s first prong. If the Petitioner does 
not meet the first prong, the evidence is dispositive in finding the Petitioner ineligible for the national 
interest waiver, and we need not address the second and third prongs. See id. (requiring that petitioners 
establish all three prongs in order to establish eligibility). 
3 
First, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's claim that the denial is deficient because the Director 
did not review the entirety of the evidence in the record. In support of this claim, the Petitioner states 
that the failure to consider all of the relevant evidence submitted has been found to constitute an abuse 
of discretion and cites to Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1223 (E.D. Mi. 1994). While we agree 
that an adjudicator should consider the relevant evidence in the record, 4 we also note that U.S. district 
court decisions, such as the one the Petitioner cites, are not binding precedential authority. The 
reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly 
before us; however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter oflaw. See Matter ofK-S-, 
20 I&N Dec. 715, 719 (BIA 1993). More importantly, however, the Petitioner does not sufficiently 
support his claim that there was relevant evidence that the Director did not consider. 
The Petitioner bases this claim on the fact that the Director did not explicitly identify or reference his 
descriptions of the proposed endeavor, or his personal statement submitted with his RFE response. 
However, the Director acknowledges review of the Petitioner's supporting evidence and RFE 
response, describing the contents of the record accurately. The fact that these documents are not 
referenced by name is not indicative of a failure to consider the evidence. See Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 
F.2d 1136, 1142-43 (5th Cir. 1984) ("[The Board of Immigration Appeals] has no duty to write an 
exegesis on every contention."). See also Ren v. USCIS, 60 F.4th 89, 97 (4th Cir. 2023) ("[S]o long 
as [USCIS] has given reasoned consideration to the petition, and made adequate findings, we will not 
require that it address specifically each claim the petitioner made or each piece of evidence the 
petitioner presented." (cleaned up)); Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) 
(joining the Seventh and the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals in presuming that the Board reviewed 
all of the evidence of record). Therefore, we do not find sufficient support for the Petitioner's claim 
that the Director failed to consider all of the evidence in the record. 
Next, we note that the Petitioner has not addressed all of the Director's conclusions on appeal. While 
the Petitioner reiterates and highlights the research he will continue to perform on appeal, he does not 
directly address the Director's concerns regarding how the Petitioner will achieve his goal to have a 
national impact in the materials engineering industry by continuing his work of research in the field 
of lithium-ion battery optimization through his employment at F-E-, Inc.; how his proposed endeavor 
stands to produce benefits that extend beyond his employer, clients, or collaborators; how his proposed 
endeavor in lithium-ion battery optimization will stand to impact the field on a national or global scale 
or that it stands to sufficiently extend beyond the individuals he would serve, to impact the engineering 
industry or field more broadly; or how his proposed endeavor's economic impact would have 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have other substantial positive economic effects. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential 
prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." See Dhanasar, at 889. Dhanasar provided 
examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first prong, having 
"national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or those with "significant potential to 
4 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
4 
employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
The Petitioner stated that his current employment at F-E-, Inc. provides him the opportunity to pursue 
his proposed endeavor, which is distinct from his position of employment. He indicated that his 
proposed research work is to develop a liquid fluorinated electrolyte and a reliable battery cycling 
system to improve the energy density of lithium metal batteries up to 500 Wh/kg, and that his research 
plan will align with the goal of the Battery500 consortium to deliver high energy density cells and 
extended cycling life, benefitting the United States by developing more efficient energy storage 
devices. He also indicated that his other proposed research work is to improve the stability and safety 
of lithium metal batteries, which will benefit the United States in building a safer and reliable energy 
storage infrastructure since a successful validation of the safety-enhanced battery materials could be 
applied to different types of designs and applications. While this generalized information addresses 
the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which the Petitioner proposes to work, it is not 
the relevant question for determining whether the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor 
the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national importance. See id. Here, none of the 
generalized information regarding energy, lithium batteries, transportation, and medical research the 
Petitioner submitted discusses the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and how 
the specific endeavor may have the type of broader implications indicative of national 
importance. See id. The generalized information does not discuss how the specific endeavor the 
Petitioner proposes to undertake may have "national or even global implications within a particular 
field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances," or 
"significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area," or any other broader implications that may indicate 
national importance. See id. In tum, the Petitioner's references to prior research he has conducted 
relate to the second Dhanasar prong--whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed 
endeavor--but they do not relate to whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes prospectively 
to undertake may have national importance. See id. at 888-91. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of his publications and citation record to establish how his 
past research success suggests that his future endeavor will have a similar impact. While we 
acknowledge that evidence of the impact of his past work provides a basis to suggest that his future 
work will have a similar impact, this past research acclaim does not in itself establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. Here, the Petitioner has not identified the specific nature of his 
proposed future activities so that we might determine the endeavor's possible impact. The Petitioner 
has not established how his past research record supports a finding that his future work will have a 
similar impact or that such impact would rise to the level of national importance. 
The record includes letters of support from academics specializing in the fields of advanced materials 
and manufacturing and engineering who speak favorably about how the Petitioner's past research has 
contributed to the field of materials engineering. While these letters discussed the broad impact of the 
Petitioner's previous research to the overall national interest of the United States and how his work 
has improved public health and technological advancements, the authors demonstrate little knowledge 
concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Overall, we observe that the authors broadly report 
the same information about the Petitioner's past research topics. While research must add information 
5 
to the pool of knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication, this alone is insufficient 
to substantiate a claim of impact to the field. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use optmon statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. Matter a/Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject 
an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in 
any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding 
an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, although the authors discuss the nature of the work the 
Petitioner has performed in the past, they offer little specific information concerning the Petitioner's 
prospective future endeavor. As such, these letters are of little probative value regarding the first 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, as they do not meaningfully address the details of the 
proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance. The Petitioner also presented articles 
and industry reports discussing the importance of energy, lithium batteries, transportation, and medical 
research in the United States. However, while the articles and reports offer useful background 
information, they are of little probative value in this matter as they do not discuss the impact of the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. 
Simply obtaining employment or conducting research in a worthy field or industry, such as materials 
engineering, does not warrant a national interest waiver. Accordingly, without sufficient 
documentary evidence of its broader impact, the Petitioner's proposed research does not meet the 
"national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Similarly, 
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. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. The evidence does not show that the Petitioner's activities performed during his 
continued research while continuing his employment at F-E-, Inc. would have economic impacts 
beyond the clients and customers served by his employer such that it will have broader implications 
for others in the United States. 
Finally, we note the Petitioner's statements regarding his expertise and prior career accomplishments 
in the field of materials engineering. These statements, however, address aspects of the 
second Dhanasar prong but do not address how the proposed endeavor in the United States has 
broader implications beyond his immediate employer and its clients, as required by the 
first Dhanasar prong. See id. 
The Petitioner's claims on appeal do not overcome the basis for the Director's findings as they relate 
to the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Moreover, upon de novo review, we agree that 
the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 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 framework, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third 
prongs outlined in Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ( 1976) ("courts and agencies 
6 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7