dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Chemical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 03, 2025 In Re: 37077722 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chemical engineer and entrepreneur, 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 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 did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a 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 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 ofDhanasar, 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 Petitioner is a chemical engineer who aims to establish and act as the chief executive officer 
(CEO) for _____________ ThroughI I the Petitioner intends to provide 
"specialized services to industrial chemistry and food manufacturers." Specifically, the Petitioner aspires 
to "allow [c]hemical and [fJood [i]ndustry companies' operations to be more efficient and profitable, 
helping companies in their administrative and project management, and creating specifications to 
optimize their industrial processes' productivity, safety, profitability, and competence," in addition to 
"assist[ing] The Petitioner specifiedthe customers in obtaining globally recognize certification.... " 
would assist in "ensuring food safety from farm to table," while maintaining and updating its 
website. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish the substantial merit and 
national importance of the proposed endeavor; that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor; or that, on balance, it would be beneficial for the United States to waive the 
requirements of a job offer and thus a labor certification. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. Matter of 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 Petitioner has demonstrated her proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit. 
However, the Petitioner has not met her burden of demonstrating the proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its 
potential prospective impact. Id. In Dhanasar, we 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 particular field." Id. 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. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner expresses her disagreement with the Director's denial decision. The 
Petitioner claims the Director did not comprehend the role of the Petitioner in the proposed endeavor, 
the relevance of her business, or the services Petitioner intends to execute. The Petitioner contends the 
Director did not properly analyze her business plan, asserting that only half of those documents were 
reviewed and "[r]eputable surveys, several letters from experts in the field, potential partners and 
investors, declarations from past employees and accurate scientific data were ignored in the adjudication." 
Further, the Petitioner indicates the Director's analyses on the first and second Dhanasar prongs were 
inappropriate. The Petitioner indicated a brief containing further details would be "submitted within 30 
2 
days," but the record does not contain such a brief And in making these initial claims on appeal, the 
Petitioner does not specify the manner in which she believes the Director did not properly view her 
business, its services, or her own role in the business. Similarly, the Petitioner does not articulate her 
basis for asserting the Director only reviewed half of the documents in her business plan and "ignored" 
the others or articulate the specific grounds on which she finds the Director's prong one and two analyses 
to be inappropriate. 
Upon review, the Director found the Petitioner intended to act as the CEO ofl Ioffering a range of 
services to "safeguard public health and maintain consumer confidence in the U.S. food supply." The 
Director summarized! Iintended services, as articulated by the Petitioner in her initial petition and 
in response to the Director's request for evidence. We concur with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated the provision of these services to clients, including industrial chemistry and food 
manufacturers, would result in broader implications to the industry at a level commensurate with national 
importance. The Petitioner previously asserted her endeavor is in a field of STEM technologies and 
research, chemical engineering, and highlights the importance of alleviating the shortage of workers in 
these STEM fields. However, while we recognize the value of the fields implicated in the Petitioner's 
endeavor, including food safety and quality, and the value of technological innovations and emerging 
technologies in chemical engineering, merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor. The relevant question is not the importance of the field, 
industry, or profession in which the Beneficiary may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. Here, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently detailed or established how her particular endeavor will meaningfully impact the broader 
governmental initiative of chemical engineering or the relevant fields, including food safety and 
quality assurance. Further, as noted by the Director, the alleged shortage of occupations or 
occupational skills does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important under Dhanasar and 
such shortages are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification 
process. 
The Petitioner also previously indicated that I I plans to employ 16 individuals by its fifth year of 
business operations, with payroll expenses totaling nearly one million in that year, and a net worth 
exceeding 500,000 dollars. However, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient supporting evidence 
corroborating these projected employment and financial figures, as indicated in the business plan, or 
established the significance of the data to show the endeavor would provide substantial economic benefits 
to the region or national economy more broadly. While any economic activity has the potential to 
positively impact the economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the potential economic activity 
of her specific endeavor stands to create substantial positive economic effects to the requisite level. 
Overall, the Petitioner has not established her proposed endeavor of establishing and serving as CEO of 
Iwill further the impacted fields in a nationally significant manner, have broader implications in 
these fields, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or have substantial positive economic 
effects. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor 
her eligibility for a discretionary national interest waiver. 
B. Additional Dhanasar Prongs and Ineligibility 
3 
I 
As our finding on this issue is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and reserve 
whether the Petitioner has met the additional prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "courts and agencies 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 the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4