dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Chemical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY I, 2024 In Re: 30644457 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chemical sales engineer and technical consultant, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for EB-2 classification and 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 a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that 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. 
1 See also 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
The Petitioner proposes "to offer her services as a chemical sales engineer and technical consultant in 
areas such as (1) chemical and biological treatment of industrial waters and waste; (2) fire, 
environmental, and hazard protection of facilities and equipment; and (3) industrial processes relating 
to chemical manufacturing and food production." 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the 
specific endeavor that the individual 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was of substantial merit, and we 
agree. However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed 
endeavor had national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "substantial evidence was provided to establish" national 
importance. The Petitioner contends that her proposed endeavor "has national importance based on 
the potential societal health and welfare benefits to the United States (not necessarily economic 
benefits)." She states that: (1) her endeavor will be beneficial in "implementing quality safety 
practices within the Chemical Engineering Industry" reducing the number of fires and other safety 
hazards; (2) her knowledge of "treatment of industrial water will allow her future employers in the 
aforementioned industry to effectively manage the water waste derived from their operations;" and (3) 
her skills and experience as a technical sales engineer will "advance the techniques and strategies that 
will increase revenues and profitability for U.S. companies." 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting her work's "potential prospective impact." While the Petitioner 
claims that her proposed endeavor is of national importance, she has not offered sufficient information 
and evidence to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor's prospective impact 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, the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the 
Petitioner's specific proposed work as a chemical sales engineer and technical consultant offers 
broader implications in her field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive 
economic effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that her proposed endeavor has significant potential to broadly 
enhance societal welfare. The Petitioner contends the Director improperly focused only on the 
potential economic impacts of her proposed endeavor, rather than its asserted benefits to societal 
welfare. For instance, the Petitioner asserts that her provision of industrial wastewater treatment 
solutions would remove containments from water and contribute to water security for industry and 
agriculture. She further asserts that she can facilitate the implementation of a wide range of safety 
practices within the manufacturing industry and, therefore, reducing injuries, employee deaths, and 
fire hazards. Although we agree that the Petitioner may demonstrate national importance based on the 
prospective societal impact of their proposed endeavor, she submits little explanation or evidentiary 
support as to how her proposed endeavor would impact water quality on a national level. Likewise, 
2 
the Petitioner has provided insufficient explanation and little supporting evidence to substantiate that 
her implementation of safety practices within the chemical engineering industry would have a potential 
prospective national impact on reducing the number of fires and other safety hazards within the 
chemical industry. Therefore, the Petitioner did not sufficiently substantiate that her proposed 
endeavor would have a prospective national impact on U.S. societal welfare. 
The Petitioner further contends that her proposed endeavor would "offeer innovations of broad 
implications to the U.S. business arena," particularly within the chemical industry. She asserts that by 
assisting companies in several industries with wastewater treatments and solutions, she will be 
supporting productivity, fostering economic growth, and safeguarding jobs within these sectors. 
However, the Petitioner does not sufficiently articulate or document these potential innovations, nor 
the broad implications they would have on a chemical industry, an industry she indicates includes 
"several hundred thousand" chemical facilities throughout the United States. Without sufficient 
information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to 
her future work, the record does not indicate that the benefits to the regional or national economy 
resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
In addition, we reviewed the reference letters the Petitioner mentions on appeal. The authors praise 
the Petitioner's abilities and the personal attributes that make her an asset in the chemical industry. 
While they evidence the high regard the Petitioner's colleagues have for her and her work, they do not 
offer persuasive detail concerning the impact of her proposed endeavor or establish how such impact 
would extend beyond her customers. As such, the letters are not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility 
under the first prong of Dhanasar. 
Finally, we reviewed the expert opinion letter from an adjunct professor at the 
I I In addressing the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, we note that the author 
focuses on the Petitioner's over 31 years of experience in the chemical industry. However, the 
Petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar' s second prong, which 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national importance 
of his proposed work. The opinion letter does 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 her field, has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers, or that it would broadly enhance societal welfare for our nation for it to rise to the level of 
national importance. 
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. We also reserve 
a determination on the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification. 2 
2 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4