dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22678632 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 29, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an engineer , seeks second preference immigrant classification 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 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. 
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. LAW 
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. ... the 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 te1m "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). 1 Dhanasarstates that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a 
matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the 
noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 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 ofa labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
non citizen 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 dete1mining 
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 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 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the non citizen's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the 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 noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacatedourp1iorprecedent decision,MattcrofNew York State Dep't of Transp., 
22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 
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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner 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 of a labor certification, would be in the national interest 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job off er is warranted. 
Initially, the Petitioner generally described the proposed endeavor as "employment in the field of 
[ a ]dvanced [ e ]lectrical [ e ]ngineering, especially in the increasingly important American oil and gas 
sector." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner reiterated that the 
"proposed endeavor is to continue working in field [sic] of [ a ]dvanced [ e ]lectrical and [ e ]lectronics 
[e]ngineering in in the [ o ]il & [g]as sector." The Petitioner asserted that he has been employed bye=] 
since 2007 and that his current job title is training manager. The Petitioner also asserted that 
his duties include being "in charge of the I I Maintenance Academies I & II for all I I I I tools maintenance" and "play[ing] a leading role in designing and producing 
technical guides used by [i]nstructors and [e]ngineers at large-scale projects all over the world ... 
either flown to Texas or link-in virtually to learn my skills and then implement those advances all over 
the world." 
The Director acknowledged that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit; however, the Director 
found that the Petitioner "does not detail how his specific work as a training manager and instructor 
will have wide-ranging implications in the field, or how it would otherwise offer original innovations 
that will contribute to the broader oil and gas industry." The Director also found that the "proposed 
endeavor points to a single impact with his employers and their clients." The Director concluded that 
the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance because it does not 
demonstrate that the proposed endeavor will have broader implications in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a one-page statement accompanied by a brief. Both documents 
contain assertions that do not appear to match the underlying decision. For example, in the statement, 
the Petitioner asserts, "In terms of legal errors, the evidence I submitted did legally satisfy the 
' [ s ]ubstantial [ m ]erit' criterion." However, the Director concluded in the decision, "USCIS finds that 
the [P]etitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit." More problematically, the brief 
specifically references the endeavor of an individual whose name is entirely dissimilar to the 
Petitioner's name, I- 0-, in at least 20 separate paragraphs. Similar to the Petitioner's statement, the 
brief also asserts a procedural history unsupported by the record. For example, the brief asserts that 
"the AAO incorrectly and improperly applied the legal criteria for reviewing an NIW approval" 
However, as noted above, the Petitioner appealed a decision of the Director of the Texas Service 
Center; he did not submit a motion to reopen orto reconsider a decision of the Administrative Appeals 
Office, because we have not entered a decision in this matter prior to this decision. 
2 SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs. 
3 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal: 
USCIS erroneously argues thatl !failed [sic] to satisfy the "[n]ational 
[i]mportance" criterion. The TSC has made a major legal mistake by erroneously 
applying the legal standard for this criterion. Please note that in Dhanasar, the AA0 
changed the traditional"[ n ]ational in [ s ]cope" criterion that was in the NYSDOT case, 
to "[n ]ational [i]mp01iance." 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal: 
The submitted evidence including those provided at the time of filing of this petition 
shows howl I specific work and expertise is a primary contributortol I I I ability to generate millions in economic benefits to the United States which 
unquestionably leads of [sic] job creation. 
Furthermore, the evidence submitted with his case demonstrated, far beyond the legal 
standard of 'preponderance of evidence' that his advances specifically in his field have 
already been used, duplicated, applied, and forwarded throughout numerous large-scale 
oil and gas projects-including projects that involve numerous other companies and 
hundreds of engineers. This is how advances in his field are shared-in the real world, 
both nationally and internationally! 
The Petitioner further asserts on appeal: 
Also concerning the "[n ]ational [i]mp01iance" of his work, the record demonstrates that 
(in a manner similar to that of Mr. Dhanasar of the Dhanasar case I 
submitted probative expert letters from individuals holding senior positions throughout 
his industry describing the importance of I I expertise in electronics 
engineering and the development of complex business development systems in the [ o ]il 
& gas sector, especially as it relates to U.S. strategic interests. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal: 
Yet another legal error made by the TSC is that the TSC failed to acknowledge that 
I I expertise impacts many people and a tremendous amount of economic activity 
outside his employer. . . . In light of the miniscule impact that Mr. Dhanasar had 
outside of his small and obscure university campus, the benefits ofl lwork 
certainly go far beyond his specific employer. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 
"specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 8 89. 
Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first 
prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improvedmanufacturingprocesses or medical advances" and endeavors that have broader 
4 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
We first note that the record does not establish that I I is an alias of the Petitioner. 
Therefore, the Petitioner's repeated discussion ofl I endeavor, and of the Director's 
decision inl lmatter, are inapposite to the Petitioner's matter, and may not establish 
eligibility. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(l)(requiringa petitioner to "establish that he or she is eligible 
for the requested benefit at the time of filing the benefit request," not to establish that someone other 
than a petitioner is eligible for the requested benefit). 
The record does not support the Petitioner's assertion that his "proposed endeavor ... to continue 
working in field [sic] of [a]dvanced [e]lectrical and [e]lectronics [e]ngineering in the [o]il & [g]as 
sector" has national importance. The record contains a I I 
document, indicating that its information was "presented by [ the Petitioner]." Although the document 
indicates thatl I copyrighted it in 2019, it does not indicate how, when, 
where, and the audience to whom the Petitioner presented the information. The training document 
specifically states that "[t]he information contained in this document is company confidential and 
proprietary property ofl I and its affiliates. It is to be used only for the benefit of I 
and may not be distributed, transmitted, reproduced, altered, or used for any purpose without 
the express written consent of I I The record contains other documents, such as a 
I I student guide, crediting the Petitioner, 
among others, as a "subject matter expert," bearin a similar co ri ht notice that "[t]his information 
is confidential and is the property of Do not use, disclose, or 
reproduce withoutthe prior written permission fro If this document is printed, ensure 
that it is kept secure and only shared with employees directly involved with the service." 
Accordingly, the training materials presented by the Petitioner indicate that their intended use is "only 
for the benefit of lwith limited possible exceptions. 
The record also contains printouts of emails exchanged with the Petitioner by individuals who 
remotely attended training sessions conducted by the Petitioner; however, the email addresses used by 
the trainees include the I I domain or their signature blocks indicate that they are 
employees of I We note that the record contains emails from employees of two separate 
companies, thanking the Petitioner for his instruction; however, both emails specifically indicate 
"Date: * No Date*." Therefore, neither of the emails establish a fact as of the petition filing date. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(1) (requiring a petitioner to "establish that he or she is eligible for the requested 
benefit at the time of filing the benefit request"). Accordingly, the record indicates that the Petitioner's 
endeavor of training his employer's employees will benefit his employer and, by extension, his 
employer's clients. The record does not establish how his training sessions may have "national or 
even global implications within a particular field," as opposed to implications within a particular 
employer and its clients. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
The record does not support the Petitioner's assertion that his endeavor-training his employer's 
employees-creates jobs. Instead, the record indicates that the Petitioner trains the employees that his 
employer has hired. The record does not establish any causal link between the Petitioner's training 
activities and his employer's-or any other employer's-hiring practices, nor does it specify the 
number of jobs the Petitioner's endeavor is anticipated to create in any particular location during any 
5 
particular time period in order for us to determine whether the endeavor may have "significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." See id. at 889-90. 
Additionally, the Petitioner's reliance on expert letters from individuals holding senior positions 
throughout his industry is mis laced. The record contains letters of recommendation from a training 
and development manager of the North America sales director of I the 
"global education center leader" of ____ and the technology director of I services of 
I I Although the letter authors may hold senior positions within the Petitioner's employer, 
the record does not establish that they hold "senior positions throughout his industry." More to the 
point, the letters generally discuss the Petitioner's qualifications, which relate to the secondDhanasar 
prong-whether he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor-rather than relating to the 
first Dhanasar prong-whether the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance. See id. at 889-90. 
Finally, the record does not support the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that "[y]]et another legal error 
made by the TSC is that the TSC failed to acknowledge thatl !expertise impacts many 
people and a tremendous amount of economic activity outside his employer." The Director 
acknowledged that "the potential prospective impact of the [P]etitioner' s proposed endeavor points to 
a single impact with his employers and their clients" (emphasis added). The Director also 
acknowledged that the proposed endeavor entails the Petitioner training his employers employees and 
that their work will, in turn, benefit his employer's clients. However, as discussed above, the record 
does not establish how the Petitioner's endeavor of training his employer's employees will have 
"national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or have broader implications, such as 
"significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We 
reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (197 6) ("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 ofL-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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6