dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Chemical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19195395 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 29, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chemical engineer, seeks second preference immigrant classification as an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, 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). After a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 
classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 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. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the substantial merit or national importance of the proposed endeavor or that the Petitioner 
is well positioned to advance it. Additionally, the Director found that the evidence did not establish 
that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification (emphasis added), 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. 
Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to 
architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
2 
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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). In announcing this new framework, we vacated 
our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 
215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant a national interest 
waiver as matter of discretion. See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th 
Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in 
nature). As a matter of discretion, the national interest waiver may be granted 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. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three 
prongs. 
11. ANALYSIS 
A Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
In order to show that a petitioner holds a qualifying advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied 
by"[ a ]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States advanced degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Alternatively, a petitioner may present 
"[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer(s) 
showing that the [individual] has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in 
the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
In his initial filing, the Petitionersubmitted a copy of his bachelorof chemical engineering diploma issued 
by a Venezuelan university in December 2000. Although the Petitioner indicated on his Form ETA 750 
Part B that he studied in his bachelor's degree program from 1992 to 2000, he did not provide any 
academic transcripts to susbtantiate the duration or course content of his studies. We reviewed th~ 
evaluation from the I I Corporation, which contains the opinion of evaluator! I 
concerning the equivalency of the Petitioner's foreign education and work experience. Initially, we note 
that the evaluation appears to have been prepared for a different petitioner as it states that the Petitioner 
has experience in "sports science, sailing, sports management, and related areas," which is entirely 
incongruent with the record. We further question whether the evaluation was prepared for another 
petitioner based upon the evaluator's use of regulatory language related to a different employment-based 
classification, that of H-1B nonimmigrants. Finally, the evaluation contains temp lated language found in 
numerous other evaluations submitted on behalf of unrelated petitioners, which suggests a lack of 
independent analysis of the Petitioner's specific qualifications. As USCIS does not accept equivalency 
evaluations of experience, we focus on the academic portion of the evaluation only. 
The evaluator initially concluded that the mere completion of a foreign bachelor's degree in chemical 
engineering provides a sufficient basis for the conclusion that it is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's 
degree in chemical engineering. Subsequently, the evaluator stated that he based his conclusion on the 
reputation of the foreign university, the number of years of coursework, the nature of the coursework, the 
3 
grades attained, and the hours of academic work. Although the evaluator listed the information that he 
relied upon, he offered little analysis to support the conclusions. We do not know, for example, how the 
Petitioner's course work and academic hours actually compare to a U.S. education. Furthermore, the 
evaluator references information not contained in the record. Because the Petitioner has not submitted 
evidence of his courses, grades, and academic hours, we are unable to independently examine the basis 
for the evaluator's conclusions. We may, in our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's foreign 
education as an advisory opinion. Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we 
may discount or give less weight to that evaluation. Id. Here, we question the credibility of the 
evaluation because it contains language that appears unrelated to the Petitioner and his immigrant 
classification, in addition to conclusory statements not supported by analysis or other corroborating 
evidence in the record. Although the Director appeared to accept the Petitioner's foreign education as 
the equivalent of a U.S bachelor's degree, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met his burden in this 
regard. 
The Director issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) which notified the Petitioner that the evidence did 
not establish five years of progressive, post-baccelaureate employment experience as well as clarified 
what specific evidence could establish this element of the advance degree professional classification. As 
part of his NOID response, the Petitioner provided numerous letters from supervisors and colleagues 
with irl I the Petitioner's current and longstanding employer. Although these letters describe 
the Petitioner's work and his various position titles throughout the years, the Director observed that the 
letters did not establish how the Petitioner's work was progressive in nature. 
In addition, most of the letters are from the Petitioner's supervisors and colleagues, rather than from a 
representative authorized to make assertions concerning the durationandnatureofthe Petitioner's official 
employment history with I O IAlthough the colleagues and supervisors may be familiar with 
the Petitioner's role and experience while he worked directly alongside them, their assertions of the 
Petitioner's employment in other capacities, such as in different countries or with different subsidiaries 
or teams, are of little value as it cannot be determined how they would have direct knowledge of the 
Petitioner's employment dates and work experience. To illustrate, his former supervisors and colleagues 
do not appear to hold roles that would permit them access to the Petitioner's official! I 
personnel records. Although! I a manager inl I listed the Petitioner's training 
completions, he did not demonstrate knowledge of the Petitioner's employment dates and work 
experience, nor did he provide analysis as to how the training represents progressively responsible work. 
Tofu rther illustrate, the Petitionersu bmitted a letter from a retired I technical manager who, 
as a formerl I employee, does not demonstrate that she has the current capacity to make 
official assertions on behalf of her former employer. 
While the record contains a letter from HR Advisor! lwho appears to possess the authority 
and knowledge to provide credible information concerning the dates of the Petitioner's employment at 
I I the letter does not contain information on the Petitioner's work experience or training such 
that the progressive nature of the Petitioner's post-baccalaureate work may be estbalished. The letter 
states that the Petitioner is a current employee, and it also contains his employment start date and the title 
of his current position, but it does not contain a specific description of the duties performed by the 
Petitioner or of the training received such that the progressive nature of the Petitioner's work can be 
established. We acknowledge the Petitioner's argument on appeal that his increased salary earnings over 
4 
the years are evidence of the progressive nature of his work; however the record does not contain 
sufficient corroborating evidence regarding the Petitioner's salary over the years. Even if we had such 
documentation, this evidence would still be insufficient in establishing how the Petitioner's wotk, as 
opposed to his earnings, is progressive in nature. While we acknowledge that the evidence demonstrates 
continuous work, it is insufficient to simply submit documents without demonstrating how the work is 
actually progressive. 
Due to these evidentiary deficiencies, the record does not persuasively establish that the Petitioner is 
a member of the professions with an advanced degree. Further, the Petitioner has not asserted his 
eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence does not 
establish that the Petitioner meets the regulatory criteria for classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or that he is an individual of exceptional ability. 
B. National Importance 
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification, the issue of 
the national interest waiver is moot. The waiver is available only to foreign workers who othetwise 
qualify for classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. However, because the Director made 
additional eligibilityfindings and the Petitioner alleges error in the Director's decision, we will provide 
further analysis using the Dhanasar framework. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence 
individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner argues thatthe Director did not properly analyze the Petitioner's 
case in comparison to the standard set by Dhanasar. Regarding the national importance standard 
specifically, the Petitioner argues that the Director must analyze the impact and national importance 
of his proposed endeavor in comparison to the impact and national importance of Dr. Dhanasar's 
proposed endeavor. The Petitioner asserts that the Director is legally required to compare the impact 
of the Petitioner with that of Dr. Dhanasar and cites to the concept of precedent decisions in support. 
We acknowledge that Dhanasar is a precedent decision and further acknowledge the concept of 
precedent decisions and their controlling nature; however, the Petitioner has cited to no legal authority 
for a one-to-one comparison of two petitioners operating in vastly different fields of endeavor. 
Dhanasar establishes an analytical framework with which to examine national interest waiver cases, 
but it does mandate or even suggest that a side-by-side comparison of individual petitioners and 
endeavors is required. The Petitioner misunderstands the nature of precedential decisions when he 
concludes that approvals are required for any petitioner with more impact than Dr. Dhanasar. While 
we utilize the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar, the record contains only the Petitioner's 
evidence, facts, field of endeavor, and explanations of the proposed scope of work, not Dr. Dhanasar's. 
Despite counsel's insistence that a differentstandard be applied, the Petitioner always bears the burden 
to establish his own eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N 
Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
The Petitioner provided significant information concerning his past work, such as with I~----~ 
technologies, but offered little information concerning the proposed endeavor. He provided information 
to suggest that he would research, such as by claiming to be a top researcher, that the continued 
dissemination of his work would benefit the nation, and that his paystubs evidence that he has support for 
his ongoing research, but he did not directly state that his proposed endeavor involves research activities 
5 
or what his future research topics would be. Although the Form 1-140 requests that the Petitioner provide 
his proposed employment job title and duty description, he did not complete this section of the form. 
From the initial filing, the Petitioner's most direct statement concerning his proposed endeavor was fuat 
he "seeks employment in the field of Advanced Chemical Engineering." Accordingly, the Director issued 
a NOID which notified the Petitioner oftheevidentiary deficiencies in the record concerning his proposed 
endeavor as well as that the evidence did not establish its substantial merit or national importance. 
In response, the Petitioner stated that he will "continue working in the field of Advanced Chemical 
Engineering,___ ______ ___,' He then continued to reference his past and current work wifuout 
further defining his proposed endeavorexceptto add that he intends to "remain workingforl I I I Although we acknowledge his claim that he currently works onl I 
technologies, procedures, and processes and that he designs and produces technical guides for large-scale 
projects, the Petitioner did not directly state what his future work would involve. Even if we were to 
assume that the Petitioner's current wotk will alsl comprir his proposed endeavor, we would not have 
sufficient information concerning which specific technologies he would work with or which 
specific large-scale projects his endeavor will involve. The record contains little other direct evidence of 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner's retired colleague,! I a former resource manager for,__ ______ ___, 
I I provided additional indirect mforrnatlon concerning the Petitioner's endeavor in his letter of 
support. Here, the additional information concerning the endeavor comes only secondhand, as the 
Petitioner himself has not claimed his proposed endeavor involves the specific activities identified inD 
I I letter. According tJ I the Petitioner's endeavor "is the development o Tew p rol&ses 
and techniques for the application of novel,___ ________ ___,Technology." then 
launched into an explanation of the Petitioner's current and past work without further explanation offue 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Further confusing matters,! I indicated that the Petitioner's wotk 
involves teaching younger engineers, whichl lcited as a reason for the national importance of the 
Petitioner's work. As such, it appears that the proposed endeavor may involve teaching. Another letter 
submitted with the NOID response includes the opinion ofl I, a I I 
professional, who discussed the benefits of research and development to the United States. Although the 
letter does not directly claim that the Petitioner will perform research, it is not apparent wh~ I 
wou Id engage in such a discussion if the Petitioner's activities did not involve research. 
To summarize the direct and indirect evidence concerning the proposed endeavor, it appears as though 
the Petitioner will: (1) seek employment as a chemical engineer; (2) continue his current employment 
with I 1(3) develop new processes and techniques for the application of novell I I !technology; and (4) may possibly teach and research. In Dhanasar, we held that a 
petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 
889. Based on the information provided, the Petitioner has not clearly identified his proposed endeavor. 
The Director determined that that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit or national importance. We agree. As stated in the Director's decision, 
the record contains insufficient evidence to suggest that the Petitioner's proposal to seek or continue 
employment in chemical engineering holds substantial merit. On appeal, the Petitioner alleges legal error 
in the Director's determination concerning substantial merit, but he does not provide legal support for 
such a claim. Instead, the Petitioner compares immigration adjudications under previous and current 
6 
presidential administrations, as well as observes that in the history of national interest waivers, no field 
has been determined to be without substantial merit. As the Director noted, the Petitioner confuses the 
field, which may have substantial merit, with the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. Here, the 
proposed endeavor has not been clearly defined nor has the Petitioner submitted persuasive evidence to 
support a finding of substantial merit. The Petitioner bears the burden to affirmatively establish eligibility 
under the Dhansar framework, of which substantial merit is one piece. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. The record does not 
demonstrate that the proposed endeavor, to the extent that it has been explained, will extend beyond the 
Petitioner's employer and clients or that the Petitioner's operntions broadly impact the field of chemical 
engineering or thel I industry at a level commensurate with national importance. 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. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N 
Dec. at 893. The Petitioner argued that thel I industry impacts the U.S. economy and advances 
in this field are of immense significance. However, as previously explained above as well as in the 
Director's decision, the field or industry is not the subject of th is analysis, but rather the 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." Id. at 889. 
In Dhanasar, we frniher 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. The Petitioner has not explained what specific benefits his 
proposed endeavor will add, nor has he explained what "advances" his proposed endeavor will make in 
the industry. The Petitioner submitted evidence of reports he authored or petiormed testing for and studies 
he facilitated, but we have little indication that these documents were disseminated to anyone outside 
I I or beyondl I own projects. For instance, the Petitioner pointed out his 
influence in China, but in examining the relevant email chain, the guidance the Petitioner provided was 
to another! I employee located in China. Even if evidence of dissemination was provided, 
we would still find this evidence insufficient because dissemination alone would not establish the impact 
of the Petitioner's work in the field or on the nation. We do not know, for example, if other chemical 
engineers in thel I industry are aware of this work or whether this work has positively influenced 
other companies. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded thatthe Petitioner'sworkin theproposedendeavor 
would have impact that extends beyond his current employer. Similarly, the claims of"$$$ millions of 
dollars of impact in the real world!" have not been substantiated. For instance, the record contains no 
studies, analysis, articles, or statistics linking the Petitioner's work to millions of dollars of impactor any 
national economic benefits. As such, we have little basis to concludethatthePetitioner's wmkhas created 
millions of dollars of impact. 
The Petitioner's recommendation letters contain information on his past work and his achievements for 
I I but offer little information concerning his future proposed endeavor. Although the letters 
contain information on how the Petitioner's work has positively impacted his employer and its clients, 
the authors do not persuasively address or provide support for a finding that the Petitioner's future wmk 
will broadly impact the field. Additionally, the authors praise the Petitioner's experience, personal and 
professional achievements within! land his expertise. In general, both the Petitioner and 
7 
these authors confuse the Petitioner's merit with the merit of the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's 
expertise relates 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 the Petitioner proposes to undertake has substantial merit and national importance under Dhanasar's 
first prong. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted evidence of co-authorship on approximatelyfour articles, the most recent 
of which appears to have been published in 2014, four years prior to the filing of the instant petition. Four 
co-authored articles spanning an approximately twenty-year career as a chemical engineer suggests that 
the Petitioner's work is not primarily focused on writing and publishing. Furthermore, the citation record, 
which consist of a collective five citations, does not suggest an influence in the field commensurate with 
national importance. Although the Petitioner received an acknowledgement for his contribution to 
another writer's article, such an acknowledgement is not a citation to the Petitioner's work. Similarly, an 
acknowledgement of the Petitioner in someone else's patent is not indicative of how the Petitioner's 
work's influences or impacts in the field. Based upon the evidence provided, the Petitioner's past 
publication and citation history does notsuggestthathis proposed endeavor, if it includes research, would 
have an impact that rises to the level of national importance. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish that the Petitioner meets the requirements of 
the underlying classification nor does it establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial 
merit or national importance 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 his eligibility 
under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he qualifies for classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2){A) of the 
Act. In addition, the evidence has not shown that the proposed endeavor is of substantial merit or 
national importance. As such, he has not established that a waiver of the job offer and labor 
certification would be in the national interest of the United States. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter of Otiende, 26 l&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8