dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 13, 2025 In Re: 36025501 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification for the 
Beneficiary as a member of 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). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Beneficiary 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the 
Petitioner had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification
, a petitioner must establish the beneficiary is an 
advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. If a petitioner establishes the beneficiary's eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate that the beneficiary merits a discretionary 
waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating 
national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates 
that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature) . 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined 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 sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
At the time of filing, the Beneficiary was working for the Petitioner as a Senior Electrical Test Process 
Engineer. 2 The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary's responsibilities in this capacity include: 
• Developing, deploying, and inventing new technology within ______ 
manufacturing process. 
• Working on [the Petitioner's] most advanced technolog ,working across multiple 
technology facilities within the I _________ 1 
• Execute the I I Testing Development Process from AFI through Start 
of Regular Production ( cradle to grave). 
• Actively support primarily the GPS build events at the labs, pre-production facilities 
and assembly plants ... through development of testing processes, tooling, equipment 
and complementing quality planning tools, and support for problem solving activities. 
• Collaboratively work with a cross-functional team of engineers to refine the testing 
process and then lead the execution of the M&E and tooling procurement, installation, 
debug, start up and launch in the assembly plant(s). 
• Support other team member projects across 
Regarding the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor, the Petitioner initially indicated that it involved 
"Electrification Engineering." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary planned to "continue working on electrification and endeavor to transform 
batteries powering electrical vehicles to be safer, more reliable, and affordable through designing and 
developing cutting edge technology and diligent testing of batteries." The Petitioner further asserted 
that the Beneficiary "will accomplish this through promoting safer and easier to industrialize product 
designs, introducing highly automated test processes, more advanced detection instruments and more 
refined electrochemical detection methodologies." 
The Petitioner submitted an April 2024 letter from C-S-, its Product Interface Manager for the 
manufacture of battery and fuel cells, stating: 
2 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for the Beneficiary to have a 
job offer from a specific employer. However, we will consider information about her position to illustrate the capacity in 
which she intends to work in order to determine whether the proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
2 
[The Beneficiary] supports a cross-functional engineering team in the development and 
refinement of the production electrical test process and the execution of procurement 
of the assembly equipment and tooling and installation, debug and launch. She 
develops production assembly testing processes, layout concepts, and continuous 
refinement as the process transitions to the execution phase. [The Beneficiary] 
develops test system statement of requirements and complementing buy-off checklist. 
She works with equipment suppliers in the design, assembly, and buy-off of a 
production capable system. [The Beneficiary] works with our installation team in 
installation, debugging, and buy-off of equipment in the plant. She supports plant build 
events and documents/resolves build issues. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. Id. The Director determined the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. We agree. 
The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the 
Beneficiary's proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. at 889. This consideration may include 
whether the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an 
economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even 
global implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. 
Id. at 889-90. The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish the potential prospective impact 
of the Beneficiary's proposed work. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands to "have national 
implications within the field of Electric Vehicles (EV) and Battery Safety," "impact the ability of the 
U.S. to remain globally economically competitive in the automotive markets," and "broadly enhance 
societal welfare specific to carbon emission reduction and U.S. public safety." In addition, the 
Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's undertaking affects U.S. initiatives relating to "renewable 
energy sources, next-generation battery cell technology, and overall battery safety and performance." 
The Petitioner points to a September 2024 letter from L-S-, its Supervisor of Verification and Testing 
Systems, GPS ME, provided in response to the RFE. Regarding the importance of the Beneficiary's 
work, L-S- listed the following reasons: 
1. Safety - [The Beneficiary] ensures the safety of electric vehicle's batteries through 
rigorous testing of the RESS (Rechargeable Energy Storage System), ensuring that 
these highly sensitive batteries are safe to use and ready for production. She also 
problem solves when there are other emergencies with Batteries, such as addressing the 
root cause of the ______ 
2. Electrification - Without safe batteries, there is no other way to power an electric 
vehicle. They store electricity to power the vehicle's electric motor, which moves the 
wheels. The battery is what makes these vehicles sustainable, what releases it from its 
3 
dependence on fossil fuels. This clearly advances the goals of decreasing carbon 
emissions and pursuing sustainable energy sources. 
3. Advancement of the Automotive Industry - Leading the team in efficient battery design 
and handling is crucial to advance the automotive industry in the U.S. and its 
competitiveness in the global market. If American manufacturers cannot compete with 
the low prices of their competitors. Furthermore, enforcing! Iensures high­
quality and reliable automotive products, bolstering consumer confidence and a 
willingness to embrace EVs. 
4. Economic Impact - Successful product launches and the efficient management of 
projects can lead to increased production capacity, potentially creating new job and 
securing those that already exist. If American manufacturers cannot compete with the 
low prices of their competitors, the automotive sector will be dominated by the overseas 
competitors. 
5. Technological Leadership - This role contributes to the advancement of EV 
technologies in the U.S. by propelling battery design forward and leading automation 
initiatives. It also contributes to the economic stability of auto manufacturers, as 
mentioned above. 
The Petitioner also contends that the Director's decision disregarded information in the letter from C­
S-, who asserted that the "impact of [the Beneficiary's] contributions goes beyond our organization, 
setting new benchmarks for the field of electric vehicles." The Petitioner, however, has not shown the 
Beneficiary's specific projects as a Senior Electrical Test Process Engineer stand to impact U.S. 
battery safety and sustainability initiatives, advancement of our automotive industry, or our nation's 
economy and technical leadership to an extent that her proposed work holds national importance. 
While the Beneficiary's proposed work may affect the Petitioner's electrification and testing 
processes, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her undertaking's broader implications in the field or 
industry. It is insufficient to claim a proposed endeavor has national importance or would create a 
broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims. 
The record also includes an April 2024 letter from H-I-, who previously worked for the Petitioner as 
a Battery Pre-Production Operations Manager and in other managerial and engineering capacities. H­
I- indicated that he first met the Beneficiary "in 2016 when she worked for [the Petitioner] as a 
Technical Lead - Battery Test." H-I- further stated: 
In this role, [the Beneficiary] led battery projects launch for battery leak/electrical test 
process development, test equipment sourcing, design validation and equipment buy 
off. . . . She developed new test processes and new method innovation and evaluation. 
[The Beneficiary] reviewed battery failures by troubleshooting, battery disassemble, 
and tear down for repairing and problem solving. She acted as a Project Engineer for 
special requirement parts (thermal pack etc.) and prototype pack builds. 
The Beneficiary's skills, knowledge, and prior work in her field relate 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 she proposes to undertake has national 
importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
4 
The Petitioner also provided an "Analysis and Advisory Evaluation" letter from Dr. H-D-, Associate 
Professor at the ___________________ in support of the Beneficiary's 
national interest waiver. Dr. H-O- contends that the Beneficiary's proposed work is of national 
importance because her generic occupation of automotive engineer and the industry in which she 
works stand to benefit the U.S. economy. The issue here, however, is not the national importance of 
the profession or industry in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The letters 
from Dr. H-D-, C-S-, H-I-, and L-S- do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does 
the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Beneficiary 's specific proposed 
work offers broader implications in her field or industry or substantial positive economic effects for 
our nation that rise to the level of national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted articles on the importance of electrification engineering, 
automotive engineering, automated safety technologies, software-defined vehicles, the automotive 
industry, battery engineers, the Petitioner's U.S. economic impact, clean vehicles, and EVs. The 
record also includes information about U.S. critical infrastructure sectors, critical and emerging 
technologies, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and protecting the U.S. automotive industry. The 
Petitioner claims that these articles support the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed 
endeavor. The determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of one's field 
or industry in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." Id. at 889. Here, none of the articles mention the Beneficiary or her assigned projects, or 
otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor. 
While the Petitioner states on appeal that "millions of Americans drive or ride in its vehicles" and that 
it "has long been a pillar of the nation's economy," it has not demonstrated that the economic 
implications and technological advancements resulting from its overall operations would be 
attributable to the Beneficiary's particular role as a Senior Electrical Test Process Engineer to an extent 
that her specific proposed work holds national importance. The Petitioner further claims that the 
Beneficiary's proposed "endeavor is critical for ensuring the safe production and use of battery 
technology through electric vehicles" and "is absolutely necessary to ensuring reliability and safety 
protections to consumers," but the evidence does not show that her proposed work stands to offer 
broader implications in her field or industry beyond her projects for the Petitioner. 
To evaluate whether the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. Id. at 
889. While the Petitioner's statements reflect the Beneficiary's intention to improve her employer's 
EV battery testing processes, it has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that 
the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In 
Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, we 
conclude the record does not show that the Beneficiary's specific proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond her employer and its operations to impact the field of electrification 
engineering, the U.S. EV industry, societal welfare, public safety, or our country's economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that 
the Beneficiary 's specific undertaking offers broader implications in the automotive manufacturing or 
renewable energy industries. 
5 
Additionally, the Petitioner has not shown that the 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. While the Petitioner asserts that the national importance of the 
Beneficiary's endeavor is evident from the scope of its vehicle manufacturing operations, it has not 
demonstrated that the economic implications of its vehicle sales would be attributable to the 
Petitioner's specific projects to an extent that her proposed work holds national importance. Here, the 
Petitioner has not shown that the wider economic effects it claims are implications of the Beneficiary's 
specific proposed endeavor to improve her employer's EV battery testing processes. Without 
sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
attributable to the Beneficiary's specific proposed work, the Petitioner has not shown that the benefits to 
the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from her projects would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive 
economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field or industry, or has other 
broader implications indicating national importance. 
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
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 her eligibility for a national interest waiver. As this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we need not reach, and therefore reserve, determination of the Beneficiary's 
eligibility under the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Beneficiary has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6