dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Chemical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 15, 2023 In Re: 28023 794 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chemical engineer and researcher, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or of exceptional ability, Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the 
job offer requirement that is attached to this employment based second preference (EB-2) 
classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(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. See Poursina v. USCIS, 936 
F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record 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. 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 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 petition 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. 
Whilst 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). Dhanasar states that USCIS may as a matter of discretion 
grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the labor certification, to a petitioner 
classified in the EB-2 category if they demonstrate that (1) the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance, (2) the noncitizen 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 
noncitizen 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 noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen 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, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petition to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Petitioner's Assertions 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's substantially 
meritorious proposed endeavor did not rise 
to a level of national importance as required by the first prong ofDhanasar. The Director determined 
the record did not clearly establish that the Petitioner was well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor. And the Director concluded that on balance of applicable factors, a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would not be beneficial to the national 
interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erroneously denied the petition. The Petitioner 
asserts they meet all applicable prongs under the Dhanasar framework and merit a discretionary 
waiver of the job offer, and thus the labor certification, in the national interest. The Petitioner 
specifically assigns error by contending they have "provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 
[they are] an outstanding professional" and had previously worked in their chemical engineering and 
research field. The Petitioner also asserts that the Director's request for evidence (RFE) "lack[s] 
2 
specific reasons regarding the bases for the rejection of the evidence presented" and extends this 
criticism to the Director's decision as well. 
At the outset, we note the Petitioner's elementary misunderstanding of the EB-2 immigrant 
classification. The Petitioner's self-professed identification as an "outstanding" professional" is 
misplaced here. The EB-2 immigrant classification does not require a petitioner to establish that they 
are an outstanding professional. The EB-2 immigrant classification requires a petitioner demonstrate 
that they have earned an advanced degree or are of exceptional ability. 
The Petitioner contends that their ability to precisely respond to the RFE was impaired because its 
contents are vague and do not cite to any examples. To the contrary, our examination concludes that 
the RFE articulated the specific reasons why the record as composed at the time of initial filing did 
not demonstrate eligibility for the immigrant classification. For example, the RFE specified that the 
evidence the Petitioner submitted reflecting their presentations at conferences in 2002 did not 
sufficiently establish the potential prospective impact from broader implications of their endeavor to 
matters rising to a level of national importance. And the RFE highlighted that the Petitioner's broad 
assertions of positive economic effects from their endeavor were not sufficiently demonstrated in the 
record by evidence reflecting employment potential for U.S. workers or other substantial positive 
economic effects. Moreover the RFE provided a framework for the Petitioner to refer to as they 
addressed the concerns with suggestions of specific categories of evidence to establish eligibility for 
a discretionary waiver of the required job offer and thus a labor certification. So the Petitioner's 
assertions relating to the RFE's lack of specificity are not well taken. 
B. The Proposed Endeavor's Substantial Merit and National Importance 
We will now address whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, 
and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Petitioner described their 
endeavor as an "intention to continue [their] career as a Chemical Engineering Researcher." The crux 
of their endeavor was their "willing[ness] to work with any U.S. company in need of [their] services", 
ostensibly a research company contracted to provide services to other companies such academic 
institutions, or companies in the chemical, petrochemical, or pharmaceutical sector. The Petitioner 
submitted a set of job duties they aspired to perform in their endeavor, with a focus on process 
simulation. The Petitioner stated process simulation "can optimize entire industrial plants to be safer, 
cost-effective, and efficient. [Process simulation] can also lead to reduced maintenance costs, less 
equipment wear-and-tear, and better use of staff resources. Through [process simulations], I can 
expand experimentation efforts, go through trial-and-error testing, without wasting significant 
funding, or risking negative safety or environmental impacts, and access more data ... " The Petitioner 
identified "environmental protection," "food production," "agriculture," "petroleum industry," and 
"medicine" as fields that could benefit from their endeavor. 
We agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the 
national importance of their substantially meritorious endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 1 To satisfy the first prong under the Dhanasar analytical framework, the 
1 The conclusions on page 3 of the Director's decision are not contradict01y. The Director correctly stated that the record 
3 
Petitioner must demonstrate that their proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance. This prong of the Dhanasar framework 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. 
Although the evidentiary standard in immigration proceedings is the lowest preponderance of the 
evidence standard, the burden is on the Petitioner alone to provide material, relevant, and probative 
evidence to meet that standard. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. A petitioner's burden of 
proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well as the ultimate burden of 
persuasion. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998); see also the definition ofburden 
of proof from Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (reflecting the burden of proof includes both 
the burden of production and the burden of persuasion). First, a petitioner must satisfy the burden of 
production. As the term suggests, this burden requires a filing party to produce evidence in the form 
of documents, testimony, etc. that adheres the governing statutory, regulatory, and policy provisions 
sufficient to have the issue decided on the merits. 
The evidence and argument the Petitioner introduced into the record does not help them carry their 
burden of production and persuasion. In support of their claim that they can satisfy the first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Petitioner provided their professional plan and evidence in 
the form of recommendation letters, an expert opinion letter, academic records, resume, evidence of 
the Petitioner's participation in academic lectures, memberships in their field, publications, conference 
organization, attendance and participation, and reports and articles from industry. 2 
The Director concluded the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, which requires the performance of 
chemical engineering and research, had substantial merit. But the Petitioner's endeavor did not rise 
to a level of national importance because the record did not adequately demonstrate the potential 
prospective impact of the proposed endeavor rose to a level of national importance. The Director 
concluded that the record did not sufficiently establish the proposed endeavor's broader impacts 
implicated their field of endeavor to a level commensurate with national importance. 
We observe the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was largely a job search. For example, the Petitioner 
expressed their interest to work with "great companies" such as "Pfizer, Moderna, Aspen Tech, 
Honeywell, [and] ExxonMobil" or in fact "any U.S. company in need of [the Petitioner's] services." 
In support, the Petitioner cited U.S. government data reflecting "many openings" in the U.S. labor 
force for chemical engineers. A job offer is not a prerequisite to the filing of an immigrant petition in 
the EB-2 classification when seeking a national interest waiver. But the purpose of a national interest 
waiver is not to enable a petitioner to engage in a search of a job offer in the United States. So an 
endeavor consisting of offering job duties in search of employment with an employer with an objective 
for a particular benefit, such as "environmental protection," "food production," "agriculture," 
did not demonstrate the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. In other words, the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor did not satisfy the first prong under Dhanasar because whilst the record demonstrated the 
proposed endeavor's substantial merit it did not also demonstrate the endeavor's national importance. To satisfy the first 
prong under the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Petitioner must demonstrate that their proposed endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance. 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
"petroleum industry" or "medicine" is not an endeavor, but a job search. An individual's job search 
does not have potential prospective impact on the national interest because it does not broadly 
implicate matters of national importance. And a noncitizen' s job search, even if ultimately successful, 
does not relate to any potential positive economic effects that rise to a level of national importance. 
But, even if we were to put to the side our view that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor constitutes 
little more than a job search, we would still conclude that the endeavor as proposed does not rise to 
one at a level of national importance. The Petitioner described their endeavor in terms of performing 
chemical engineering and research duties. Essentially, the Petitioner contends that because chemical 
engineering and research has numerous potential benefits across a wide swath of industries, every 
chemical engineer and researcher's work rises to a level of national importance. Whilst we recognize 
that chemical engineering and research applies to various fields and disciplines, the record does not 
clearly describe the way the Petitioner's specific work in the endeavor would potentially impact their 
field prospectively in a manner rising to a level of national importance. The performance of chemical 
engineering and research duties, on a broad level, do not implicate matters rising to a level of national 
importance. The main basis of the Petitioner's claim of eligibility for the act of discretion to waive 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, in the national interest comes from the 
Petitioner's claims regarding their past career as a chemical engineer and researcher in their home 
country, their dedication to their field, and the potential manner in which the duties they intend to 
perform could benefit individual employers in a variety of different industries who could hire them. 
But these facts are not relevant to the question of whether a proposed endeavor elevates to a position 
of national importance. When evaluating the national importance of a proposed endeavor, the relevant 
question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, 
we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. So we are not concerned with the individual petitioner when evaluating the first 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework; we are focused on the petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
And to demonstrate the national importance of a proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong, we 
look to its potential prospective impact. In Dhanasar we said that "we look for broader implications." 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Broader implications are not necessarily evaluated from a narrow 
frame of reference such as geography; implications within a field which demonstrate a national or 
even international influence of broader scale can rise to a level of national importance. And substantial 
positive economic impacts, such as a significant potential to employ U.S. workers particularly in an 
economically depressed area, can also help a proposed endeavor rise to a level of national importance. 
The success of the endeavor, or attributes that could tend to make the endeavor more successful, are 
consequently not as important as determining whether the proposed endeavor itself stripped away from 
a petitioner, has attributes that would highlight the prospective positive impact of its broader 
implications or positive economic effects rising to a level of national importance. And it is here that 
the Petitioner's endeavor, such that it is, is deficient. The Petitioner's endeavor is at its core the 
performance of job duties in search of a focus, be it "environmental protection," "food production," 
"agriculture," "petroleum industry," or "medicine." But the record does not sufficiently evidence 
how the Petitioner intends to perform these duties. And the record does not adequately support how 
the performance of these duties by the Petitioner would potentially prospectively impact any one or 
all these fields in a manner that rose to the level of the national interest, either through the proposed 
endeavor's broader implications or its positive economic impact. For example, the Petitioner does not 
sufficiently link in the record how their performance of chemical engineering and research would 
increase employment in an area with historic unemployment. It does not identify what specific broader 
5 
considerations would emanate from their specific performance of chemical engineering and research 
that would implicate the national interest. 
And it is also unclear from the evidence in the record that the work of a single chemical engineer and 
researcher performing the job duties described by the Petitioner would have a significant impact on 
the field beyond its immediate sphere of influence, which at present is unidentified in the record. The 
evidence in the record does not highlight how the prospective potential impact of the work of one 
chemical engineer and researcher could have broader implications implicating the national interest in 
the wide variety of fields or "benefits" of their proposed work as the Petitioner identifies them. The 
Petitioner tries to highlight their endeavor's broader implications by linking the endeavor a mix of 
ideals applicable to a wide range of fields. For example, the Petitioner stated that chemical engineering 
can make fuels burn more cleanly, food of a higher quality, crops of greater resiliency against disease, 
and petroleum easier to extract and transport. But it is not clear how the Petitioner's specific 
performance of the job duties they describe would relate to any of the above stated benefits. And even 
if the record demonstrated the Petitioner's endeavor touched on all the identified implications, we 
would still conclude the broad benefits the endeavor implicated would not rise to a level of national 
importance because it is not clear from the record how they implicate the greater national interest. The 
performance of chemical engineering or research would directly benefit only that "great company" 
availing themselves of the Petitioner's chemical engineering and research services. This is akin to 
how the benefit of someone's teaching is generally only directly beneficial to the students being taught 
and not wider population. In Dhanasar we discussed how teaching would not impact the field of 
education broadly in a manner which rises to national importance. Dhanasar at 893. By extension, 
activities which only benefit a small subset of "great" companies, like the Petitioner's proposed 
performance of chemical engineering and research, would not rise to a level of national importance. 
The record does not contain any meaningful analysis of the broader implications or potential 
prospective economic impact rising to the level of national importance stemming from the Petitioner's 
specific performance of chemical engineering or research. And the letters of recommendation 
containing testimonials of the services the Petitioner performed do not describe how the benefits they 
have received connect to broader implications rising to national importance or any nationally 
important economic impact. 3 In sum the record supports the conclusion that the potential impact of 
the Petitioner's endeavor would benefit only the "great companies" from which they seek 
employment. 
The Petitioner's misapprehension of the first prong of Dhanasar analytical framework is patent in 
their contention that the furtherance of human knowledge stemming from the Petitioner's performance 
of chemical engineering and research is sufficient to establish its national importance rendering the 
endeavors economic impact irrelevant. But in Dhanasar, we evaluated an endeavor's potential to 
further human knowledge in the context of evaluating whether it is of substantial merit. National or 
regional substantial and positive economic effects are very germane and relevant to an evaluation of 
whether a proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact elevates to a level of national importance. 
And the Petitioner concedes that the performance of their endeavor, or their "contributions are not 
likely to translate to a direct economic impact." So the record contains insufficient evidence to 
3 Much of the documentation the Petitioner has submitted focuses on their individual accomplishments and expe1iise when 
attesting to the national importance and substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. It is important to note that the 
Petitioner's accomplishments and expe11ise are more relevant to the second prong of Dhanasar, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Dhanasar at 889. 
6 
demonstrate any the positive economic effects the Petitioner expects will be realized by their proposed 
endeavor. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. See Matter ofCaron Int 'l, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, the submission ofletters from experts supporting 
the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. The Petitioner submitted an expert opinion 
letter comprising an analysis of the positional requirements for professor/lecturer ( chemical 
engineering) authored by I I an adjunct professor of mathematics at the 
I ICollegel ISo the author of the expert opinion is not a chemical engineer 
and researcher. The record does not adequately support how their experience and individual 
qualifications as an adjunct professor of mathematics render them an expert in endeavors relating to 
chemical engineering and research such that their opinion could shed light on the national importance 
of the Petitioner's endeavor. Setting aside the authors' credentials, we observe that the entirety of the 
letter's content lacks relevance when it comes to the evaluation of whether the Petitioner's work rises 
to the level of national importance. The Petitioner expressed that their proposed endeavor was to 
perform chemical engineering and research at "great companies" in the United States. But the author's 
expert opinion concludes that the Petitioner "would work in the United States in an area of substantial 
merit and national importance" as "a seasoned Professor and Lecturer in Chemical Engineering ... " 
And the author alludes to the merit and importance of the Petitioner's work opportunities for 
collaboration between United States and Brazilian businesses. But it is not clear from the record how 
these opportunities correspond to the chemical engineering and research that the Petitioner intends to 
accomplish. And the author emphasizes the Petitioner's academic and professional background at 
length. But they do not explain how this academic and professional background relates to a proposed 
endeavor of national interest due to its broader implications of national importance or any specific 
positive economic effect such as employment in an area with historically high unemployment. 
So we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that their proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. 
C. Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
Since the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance of their proposed endeavor, the 
resolution of that issue by itself requires dismissal of their appeal. But since the Director's decision 
made specific conclusions about the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar 's second prong, we will 
discuss whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
We conclude the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that they are well positioned to advance 
their proposed endeavor under the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. In evaluating 
whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor under the second prong of 
Dhanasar, we review (A) a petitioner's education, skill, knowledge, and record of success in related 
or similar efforts; (B) a petitioner's model or plan for future activities related to the proposed endeavor 
that the individual developed, or played a significant role in developing; (C) any progress towards 
achieving the proposed endeavor; and (D) the interest or support garnered by the individual from 
potential customers, users, investor, or other relevant entities or persons. 
7 
As stated above, a petitioner's burden of proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well 
as the ultimate burden of persuasion. Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1142 n.3. The record contains evidence 
of the Petitioner's academic record, employment history, and professional recognitions such as awards 
and certificates. But simply having education, skills, and/or knowledge in isolation do not place a 
petitioner in a position to advance their proposed endeavor. This is only one factor amongst many 
factors which are evaluated together to determine how well positioned a petitioner is to advance a 
proposed endeavor. It is not clear from the totality of the evidence in the record how an individualized 
consideration of the multifactorial analysis under Dhanasar 's second prong would demonstrate how 
well positioned the Petitioner is to advance their proposed endeavor. 
And the record does not reflect how the Petitioner's prior activities as described in the recommendation 
letters is either a similar effort as that of their proposed endeavor or how it constitutes a record of 
success. Moreover the recommendation letters the Petitioner submitted are not material, relevant, or 
probative evidence in the record of interest or support in the endeavor the Petitioner proposed in their 
petition. Whilst they speak generally of the Petitioner's realization of certain objectives and skill in 
their field, they do not identify any recognition, achievements, or significant contributions to their 
field that tend to reflect that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance their endeavor. 
So the Petitioner has not demonstrated with material, relevant, and probative evidence that they are 
well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not met the requisite first or second prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we conclude that they do not merit a favorable exercise of discretion to waive the 
requirement of a job offer, and therefore a labor certification. We reserve the issue of whether the 
Petitioner demonstrated categorial eligibility under the EB-2 classification and eligibility under the 
remaining prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework respecting whether, on balance of applicable 
factors, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of 
a labor certification. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25 and Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 
n.7. 
In immigrant pet1t10n 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. The Petitioner has not met their 
burden of proof with persuasive material, relevant, and probative evidence which by a preponderance 
demonstrates the national importance of their proposed endeavor. So their appeal must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8