dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 01, 2024 In Re: 33946152 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a civil engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an advanced degree professional or a person of exceptional ability, as well as a 
discretionary 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 although the Petitioner 
qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, the record did not establish 
that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
This matter is now before us on appeal, which we review de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 
26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing his eligibility 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I.LAW 
To be eligible for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first establish eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 visa classification, as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional 
ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(A), (B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(l). 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they warrant a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. MatterofDhanasar, 26 I&NDec. 884,889 (AAO 2016), provides 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions, which states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner establishes that: (1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) they are well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and (3) on balance, 
waiving the job offer and thus labor certification requirements would benefit the United States. Id. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in holding 
that USCIS ' decision on a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined, and the record-including a copy of the Petitioner's 2021 doctorate degree 
in geotechnical engineering from China, school transcript, and diploma evaluation-shows that the 
Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional holding 
a U.S.-equivalent advanced degree. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(k)(l)-(2), (k)(3)(i)(A). 
The remaining issue on appeal is whether he warrants a discretionary national interest waiver under 
the Dhanasar framework and its requisite three prongs, any one of which is dispositive. The Director 
found that the record did not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit or 
national importance and thus be did not meet Dhanasar's first prong. 2 On appeal, the Petitioner 
alleges that the Director failed to consider all relevant evidence and properly apply the Dhanasar 
framework. We conclude that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and therefore 
withdraw the Director's finding to the contrary. However, we agree with the Director that the evidence 
does not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Under the Dhanasar framework, the first prong, "substantial merit" and "national importance," 
focuses on the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The endeavor's merit under this prong may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, 
entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In assessing whether the 
proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as he describes in his "Proposed Endeavor & Future Plans" 
statement, "is to develop approaches to analyze the performance of geotechnical structures in order to 
improve infrastructure safety and manage risk." He specifically intends to achieve this endeavor by 
"[pursuing] a position as a senior geotechnical engineer" or "a very similar position" with a reputable 
company in the United States calledl (or a similar company) where he 
also plans to be able to engage in research in various specialized topics in his field. 
Although the proposed endeavor as a senior engineer with an interest in research and development in 
geotechnical structure analysis and infrastructure safety as described above has merit, the evidence 
does not demonstrate that it would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, have substantial 
positive economic impact in this country, broadly impact the industry on national or global level 
beyond his proposed employer and its prospective customers, or otherwise have broader economic or 
societal implications rising to the level of national importance. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-890. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider and look for 
evidence of the endeavor's potential prospective impact. Id. In reasserting that his proposed endeavor 
has national importance, the Petitioner relies on his academic credentials and past experience as a civil 
and geotechnical engineer in China where he has conducted research and co-authored articles, as 
indicated in his resume, excerpts of articles referencing his name, support letters, and the general 
industry reports he submitted below noting the industry's significance. He further reiterates that, given 
his background and expertise, which he claims highly qualifies him for a senior engineer position with 
U.S. companies likel Iin the industry and its subfields, and their demand for qualified 
individuals, his proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic and societal impact. 
2 The Director also determined that the record evidence did not satisfy Dhanasar's second and third prongs. 
2 
However, the referenced evidence and assertions focus on his experience and skills and relates to 
Dhanasar's second prong, which pertains to whether he is well positioned to advance his endeavor 
and "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. For assessing 
the national importance of a proposed endeavor under Dhanasar' s first prong, we look to its "potential 
prospective impact" and evaluate whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake 
has broader national significance, rather than the importance of his profession or industry in which he 
proposes to engage. Id. at 889. Here, as a senior engineer of a U.S. company, he proposes to develop 
approaches to analyze and assess the performance of geotechnical structures, improve infrastructure 
safety, and manage associated risks by utilizing his expertise and innovative research skills he acquired 
in China. As an engineer of the U.S. company, he also plans to research technical topics such as 
"analysis of seismic deformation of embankment dam, landfill and geosynthetics reinforced structure." 
However, the record does not contain any evidence that his claimed innovative research and 
engineering methods he developed in China were or would be recognized or adopted by the industry 
in the United States or otherwise have far-reaching implications. Although we acknowledge that the 
proposed endeavor could have a positive impact on his engineering career and his future employer, he 
has not persuasively explained, and the record (primarily including his statement, support letters, 
"independent advisory opinions," excerpts of his co-authored articles, and the general industry reports) 
does not demonstrate how his proposed work for the company would have the national or global 
implications for the U.S. industry as he claims, beyond his employer and its prospective clientele. 
The Petitioner, for instance, does not claim that as a senior geotechnical engineer, he himself will 
employee U.S. workers or that his position with his employer will directly result in the company's 
hiring of U.S. workers. Further, he does not specify, and the record lacks any independent evidence 
as to, how his proposed work with the prospective company otherwise stands to impact U.S. economy 
or benefit economically depressed areas. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890 (holding that proposed 
endeavors that have "significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or "substantial positive economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed area" may indicate national importance). Other than 
the general assertion that he is "confident [he] can attain [ a senior geotechnical engineer position] or 
a very similar position related to [his] proposed endeavor in the United States," the record lacks 
probative evidence of any interest in the Petitioner from any individual, institution, or U.S. company 
and how he will specifically obtain such a position that he claims would further facilitate and elevate 
the significance of his proposed endeavor to a national level. Moreover, he does not claim that he 
would be able to advance his endeavor independently, unaffiliated with any company or institution. 
Although he also asserts in his statement that companies like I I "ha[ ve] served the 
engineers and other professionals responsible for designing, constructing, and operating sustainable 
infrastructure, essential to the quality of life for everyone, everywhere," the record lacks detail and 
objective evidence as to how or to what extent his proposed research and development through this 
(or a similar) company would have substantial positive economic or societal benefits, as he claims. 
Even ifhe were hired, the Petitioner's assertions, his professional and publication experience in China, 
and support letters, do not establish that the proposed endeavor as a company engineer would have 
"significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or "substantial positive economic effects, particularly 
in an economically depressed area." Id. 
The Petitioner nonetheless continues to highlight, and we acknowledge, his past accomplishments, 
documented in part by evidence of about a dozen research-based articles he and his co-contributors 
published in China in his field, most of which were completed while he was still a student and working 
3 
as an engineer in China. 3 The record includes excerpts of the articles he co-authored, including one 
each in 2010, 2011, 2023; two in 2014; and six in 2020. Of these, one paper lists him first, indicating 
lead authorship; and the remaining ones, as one of two to five contributors. He also avers that some 
of his research received grants from China's National Natural Science Foundation and were cited 
many times by others, as indicated by Google Scholar and a Chinese database for citation record 
("CNKI") as well as other journal articles referencing his co-authored papers from 2020 and the 2014 
______ and that he has even peer reviewed other individuals' work. Although we 
acknowledge these assertions, the articles referencing his name, and the support letters praising his 
skills and successes, his past research and publication work primarily relate to whether he is well 
positioned to advance his endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong, rather than its first prong. We 
also note that other than the September 2020 paper listing his name first, the extent to which he 
contributed to the team projects on which the other co-authored articles were based remains unclear. 
Further, he did not provide any detail or evidence on the grants he claims his past research received 
(such as qualification criteria, specific recipient(s), amounts, and fund allocations). The evidence also 
does not sufficiently substantiate the alleged quality of the claimed scholarly or other impact and its 
durability in the field as a result of his work in China, and as further discussed below, how it 
specifically would affect the endeavor he proposes to undertake in the United States. 
Even assuming he was a major contributor or lead author of all the above referenced papers, directly 
received fundings in China, and his past citation records reflect notable impact, the specific endeavor 
he proposes for the instant national interest waiver is to work for a U.S. company as a senior engineer, 
rather than a researcher, contrary to what his appeal brief implies. While there may be a research 
component to working for U.S. companies as an engineer, the Petitioner does not claim, and the record 
does not contain any evidence, that there is a meaningful interest in his proposed research topics in the 
United States, or that he will be able to conduct and publish his desired research in this country and 
widely disseminate relevant knowledge (whether under company directives or independently) that 
would have broader implications in the industry and related academia. He also does not claim, and 
the record lacks probative evidence, that his foreign research and publications on their own made or 
will have any industry-wide impact here. Other than the general assertion that his "work will continue 
to be circulated in the field through [his] peer-reviewed publications," he also does not delineate his 
future publication goals and how or to what extent he will be able to engage in research and achieve 
related goals while working as a company engineer. It is thus unclear whether or how his past research 
will be used in or inform his current proposed endeavor and its claimed future national importance. 
Lastly, the Petitioner reiterates, and correctly, that his educational background and proposed endeavor 
fall within a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics ("STEM") field. But as the Director 
noted, the record does not contain persuasive explanation or specific evidence that the proposed 
endeavor to research and develop approaches in the geotechnical structures and infrastructure safety 
fields as a senior engineer of a U.S. company, has national importance. 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (stating that with respect to the first prong, as in all 
cases, the evidence still must show that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76 (stating that petitioners bear the burden of 
3 Although he claims that he wrote two "books" in China, the partial evidence he submitted below shows that he was one 
of 11 co-authors listed for I Iin a 2020 book comprised of many other volumes, which lists 
another person ("Q-A- et al.") as the main author and editor; and one of 38 "chief drafters" of a 2014, 37- a e document 
(consisting of 50,000 word count) titled ________________________ 
4 
establishing their eligibility). Here, the record evidence does not establish that his proposed endeavor 
as a senior engineer of a U.S. company with research and development goals in the stated subjects has 
broader implications for the related industries, or it specifically furthers STEM objectives in a 
nationally significant manner, or otherwise show national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
The importance of the proposed endeavor, as noted, is evaluated by its specific potential prospective 
impact, rather than by the importance of the profession or industry in which he proposes to engage 
based on his qualifications he believes ideally position him well for his future endeavor, as also 
indicated in the support letters and "independent advisory opinions" attesting to his past achievements, 
potential for future success, and the significance of the industry. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-890. 
The purpose of the national interest waiver thus is not to facilitate a suitable individual's U.S. job 
search where there may be job opportunities in the field that may also have national significance. 
Anyone seeking such a waiver must show "the specific endeavor" they propose to undertake, whether 
in a STEM field, has national importance. Id. The Petitioner has not met his burden of proof. 4 
II. CONCLUSION 
While we acknowledge his desire to contribute to the U.S. geotechnical industry 
and its economy, the 
Petitioner has not established with specific, probative evidence that his proposed endeavor will have 
broader implications in his field, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or have substantial 
positive economic or societal effects. The Petitioner has not met Dhanasar's national importance 
prong and therefore has not established his eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
As the identified ground for denial, the Petitioner's inability to satisfy Dhanasar's first prong is 
dispositive of this appeal, we do not address here the Director's determinations as to the second and 
third Dhanasar prongs for a national interest waiver. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
(stating that agencies are not required to reach issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 The Petitioner also submits for the first time on appeal a White House "Fact Sheet" on the President's budget for 2025. 
But the Director's request for evidence specifically notified him of the evidentiary deficiency and provided him an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence. The record shows he also submitted below general industry reports and a1iicles. 
We thus decline to consider the new appeal document. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l l) (requiring all requested evidence be 
submitted together at one time); see also Matter ofSoriano, 19 T&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (declining to consider new 
evidence on appeal where the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to 
provide it before the denial). Even ifwe were to consider the new appeal document, it does not specifically pe1iain to the 
claimed national imp01iance of the proposed endeavor, and he does not persuasively explain its relevance in this context. 
5