dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Chemical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 13121037 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 9, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a research chemical engineer, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that she is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203 (b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available . .. to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, 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 first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas 
such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offerorforthe petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCJS, No. 1 7-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USC IS' decision to grant or 
deny a nationalinterestwaiverto be discretionaiy in nature). 
2 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded 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 agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&NDec. at 8 89. The Petitionerinitiallyprovideda statement indicating that she "intend[s] 
to continue using [her] expertise and knowledge in the research field of Chemical Engineering" and her 
"career plan in the United States is to continue working with American companies in the chemical 
engineering, petroleum, manufacturing, higher-education, and any industries that require [her] specialized 
knowledge, years of experience, and significant expertise as a Chemical Engineering Researcher." In 
response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner offered an updated statement indicating that 
she "intend[ s] to continue [her] career as a Research Chemical Engineer, in the United States, for any 
company or educational institution that requires my specialized knowledge and years of significant 
experience working in chemical engineering research fields as well as areas such as engineering in 
petroleum and manufacturing." In addition, she claimed that she "intend[s] to continue implementing 
inventive chemical engineering processes, optimizing production, and manufacturing systems of national 
and international significance, all while passing on my innate expe1iise to students." 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that "there is no doubt that [she] would work in the United States in an 
area of national importance, capable of producing substantially positive effects, due to the ripple effects 
of her professional activities within the chemical engineering and manufacturing fields." The Director 
determined thatthe Petitioner demonstrated the substantial merit ofherproposedendeavor, and the record 
supports that conclusion. 4 For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently shown the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner 
must demonstrate the national importance of her providing specific research chemical engineering 
services rather than the national importance of research mechanical engineering positions or chemical 
engineering, petroleum, manufacturing, or higher-education fields or industries. In Dhanasar, we further 
noted that "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 paiiicular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. 
3 SeeDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The record, for instance, includes documentation regarding the job market of chemical engineers in the United States, 
including their descriptions, roles, and responsibilities. 
3 
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. at 890 . 
In her appeal brief, the Petitioner emphasizes her "extensive expertise," "two decades of professional 
research experience," "over 10 years of experience passing on her field expertise," "prominent career," 
"outstanding achievements," and "record of accomplishments." The Petitioner's experience and abilities 
in her 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 she proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhana sar' s first prong. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact " of her work . Although the 
Petitioner asserts that "[ s ]he stands to positively impact, and further secure the manufacturing 
excellence of U.S. companies, regardless of industry - thus directly enhancing the United States' 
economy and its national interests," she has not offered sufficient, specific infonnation and evidence 
to demon strate that the prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of 
national importance. Instead , the record contains evidence regarding general information relating to 
U.S. energy production , U.S. and global energy prices , process optimization, U.S. industrial 
manufacturing statistics, widespread automation and input prices , and foreign and domestic oil and 
gas investment. The Petitioner did not establish the national importance correlation between her 
specified endeavor and these wide-ranging topics. 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 , the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor of serving as a research chemical engineer stands to sufficiently extend beyond her potential 
or futuri stic employers , to impact the oil and gas industry or any other industries or the U.S. economy 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore , the Petitioner has not established that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. While she references overall U.S. manufacturing economic output and 
employment figures and U.S. energy sector jobs and numbers , the Petitioner does not demonstrate 
how her specified proposed endeavor would somehow influence those figures. Without sufficient 
information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impactor job creation attributable to her 
future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting 
from the Petitioner's research chemical engineering services would reach the level of"substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, the Petitioner 's proposed 
endea vor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of her eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong oftheDhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not demonstrated that 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. 
5