dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12335050 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 06, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a senior application engineer and researcher, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as a memberof the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 ofa laborcertif ication. 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the proposed endeavor was of national importance or 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 immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 l&N Dec. 799, 
806 (AAO 2012). 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, 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. 
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).1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion,2 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 ofa labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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 foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she 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; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
2 See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir.2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a national interest wa iverto bed iscretionary in nature). 
2 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offerorforthe petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
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. 3 
11. ANALYSIS 
The record indicates thatthe Beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree.4 The remaining issue to be dete1111ined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiazy's 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar. 
In Part 6 of the Form 1-140, "Basic Information About the Proposed Employment," the Petitioner lists 
the Beneficiary's job title as "senior application engineer (researcher)." From the record, we 
understand that he currently works on a team "representing! I 
I I Integrated Circuit (IC) Design Flow Solutions." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
will work in a research position in the field of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
(STEM) and that he is an expert in the field ofl I Systems. While the 
record describes the Beneficiary's past work in detail, the Petitioner offers little detail about the 
proposed endeavor. In other words, the Petitioner describes the proposed endeavor in terms of what 
the Beneficiary has already done, but it does not outline in specific detail any new projects the 
Beneficiary will undertake or any particular topic the Beneficiary intends to focus on within the 
various research areas. Nor does the Petitioner define how much of the Beneficiary's time will be 
devoted to research as opposed to other engineering duties, if any. Though not explicitly stated, it 
appears as though the Beneficiary will continue working in the fields in which he has already been 
working, which include "developing digital circuits for use in [] next generation communication 
systems." The Petitioner asse1is that his work has broad application to a variety of industries and 
products including smartphones, medical devices, automated driving systems, and green energy. 
The record includes letters of support from academics and other STEM practitioners in which the= 
speak favorably about how the Beneficiary's past research has contributed to the field ofl _ I I I energy sources, which has the potential to make products more energy efficient. Though 
the authors of the numerous letters of recommendation discuss the nature of the work the Petitioner has 
performed in the past, they offer little specific information concerning the Beneficiary's prospective 
future endeavor. Notably, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), alerting the Petitioner to 
the need to establish the national importance of the Beneficiary's endeavor, with specific reference to 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs. 
4 The Beneficiazy earned a master's degree in electrical engineering from a U.S. university in 2009 and earned a Ph.D. 
from the same university in 2013. 
3 
include a detailed description of the proposed endeavor, and an explanation as to why it is of national 
importance, supported by corroborative, documentary evidence. 
As part of its RFE response, the Petitioner presented an article discussing the importance of STEM 
fields to the U.S. job market, in addition to a Congressional report on the importance of semiconductor 
manufacturing to the U.S. economy. However, 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 endeavorthatthe foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 
26 l&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 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. Here, the Petitioner's reliance 
on the article and report to meet the first Dhanasar prong based is misplaced. 
Regarding the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Director concluded that the Petitioner 
submitted insufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has national 
importance, noting that simply obtaining employment in a worthy field or industry, such as electronic 
design and automation, does not warrant a national interest waiver. To the extent that the proposed 
endeavor has been sufficiently explained, we agree with the Director that it has substantial merit. 
However, for the reasons set forth below, the evidence is insufficient to show the endeavor's national 
importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred by failing to consider and properlyweigh the 
evidence.5 In support, the Petitioner points to the Beneficiary's research areas and their broad 
applications. Specifically, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's "proposed employment has 
national importance by virtue of its national and global implications within the area of I I I _ I Systems and its direct link to the substantial positive economic effects of [the 
Petitioner]" (emphasis added). Initially, we note that this claim assigns to the Petitioner the primary 
economic benefit of the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner continues by stating that it is "one of the 
world's technology leaders in the~ I industry" and that its 
products serve "critical industrie~ I communications, computer, consumer 
electronics, semiconductor, networking, multimedia and transportation worldwide." The Petitioner 
asserts that the Beneficiary's work in this field has "tremendous implications for the future of 
technology in the U.S. and worldwide." In suppmt, the Petitioner points to documentation describing 
itself as a company and the technologies that it develops. Here, the Petitioner appears to conflate its 
success, importance, or cutting-edge role within the world market with the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor. Although a relevant consideration, it does not follow that simply because the 
Benet iciary works for the Petitioner, his contributions will generate the same level of impact as an 
entire company. 
The Petitioner also points out that the Beneficiary's research has been funded by the National Science 
Foundation (NSF). However, the record indicates that the Beneficiary conducted this nationally 
funded research while in school, under the auspices of a faculty member whose project was awarded 
the funding. While research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way in order to 
be accepted for publication, presentation, funding, or academic credit, the Petitioner has not offered 
5 While we may not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have carefully reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
evidence that funding from NSF equates to national importance for the purposes of a national interest 
waiver. For instance, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that NSF funding is contingent upon a 
demonstration of the research's prospective impact. 
Although the Petitioner mentions the Beneficiary's expe1iise, unique and high-level skill set, and his 
past success, th is relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framewolk, 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. 
The Petitioner asserts that much of the Beneficiary's research is conducted under strict confidentiality 
and proprietary rights agreements.6 If so, the Petitioner has not adequately explained how the research 
will be known widely enough to have a broader impact rising to the level of national interest. The 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how proprietary and confidential research could have a national 
economic benefit.7 The Petitioner suggests that because the Beneficiary's work will be incorporated 
into the Petitioner's proprietary products, which are then sold to individual consumers or industries, it 
will impact the U.S. and world economy substantially. However, the Petitioner does not offer a 
sufficiently direct connection between the Beneficiary's research and the products that might be 
produced or released to the market. For instance, the Petitioner has not offered a proposed timeline 
for when the Beneficiary's research will be incorporated into products available on the market, which 
products will be released, whether the Beneficiary's research is a major or minor feature within the 
overall product, or how the sale of the products will accrue benefit to the nation, as opposed to the 
Petitioner and its customers. By the Petitioner's logic, any engineer researching in the STEM field, 
whose work has the potential to be incorporated into consumer products that will eventually benefit 
the nation in an undefined time line and in an undefined way, would qualify under this prong of 
Dhanasar. We disagree. The Petitioner must establish a more direct connection between the proposed 
endeavor and the broader implications of it. 
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 nebulous nature 
of the Beneficiary's proposed future research does not sufficiently demonstrate how it would impact 
the STEM field and economy more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the Petitioner and its 
customers. Accordingly, without sufficient documentary evidence of its broader impact, the 
Petitioner's research does not meet the '"national importance" element of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 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. Id. at 893. 
6 The Petitioner has stated this as one of the reasons why the Beneficiaiy's research has garnered a limited number of 
citations. 
7 Similarly, with regard to the Petitioner's claims of improving education and training programs as part of its argument 
underthe third prong of Dhanasar, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary will offer original 
academic innovations to advance the industry through his endeavor. If the research is proprietary and confidential, then it 
is not apparent how it will reach education and training programs beyond the programswithinthepetitioning organization. 
"Failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry sha II be grounds for denying the 
[petition]." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2{b){14). 
5 
In the totality, the Petitioner has not demonstrated thatthe specific endeavor the Beneficiary proposes 
to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected 
U.S. economic impact attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. 
regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner 's endeavor would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the Beneficiary's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated the Beneficiary's 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.8 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has demonstrated that the Beneficiary qualifies for the EB-2 classification under section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. However, as the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong set forth in the 
Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary is 
eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. In visa petition 
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; Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 l&N Dec. at 806. Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8 Because the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal , we decline to reach and hereby reseJVe 
the Petitioner 's appellate arguments regarding the Beneficiary ' s eligibility under the third prong of Dhanasar . 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). 
6