dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 11853034 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 7, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that while the Petitioner 
established his eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, he 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 ofjob 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 I&N Dec. 884. 1 Dhanasar states that after EB-2 eligibility has been established, 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 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. 
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 
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 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 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) 
1 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) (NYSDOT). 
2 
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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
As acknowledged by the Director, the record demonstrates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree. 3 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. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was employed as al I engineer forl I 
is California. Prior to his em loyment withLJ he served as a graduate research assistant 
for the ......,_------------,-------,'Laboratory at the University o◄ lcrlege ofl 
EngineerinT (2013-2015). Before coming to the United States, the Petitioner worked in 
I _ as an assistant engineer for thel 1(2010-2012) and 
a network planning engineer fo~ I (2010), and also served as a guest lecturer at 
I !University in the Fall of 2010, where he taught courses in opto-electronics, 
electromagnetism, and microprocessor. 
The Petitioner indicates that his proposed endeavor is developing new technologies that will benefit 
the semiconductor and related microelectronics manufacturing industries. The Petitioner claims to be 
an expert in .__ _____________________ _.," and proposes to continue "his 
research in the same field in which he has been a leader and innovator for over five years, specifically 
within the area dfl r, The Petitioner states 
that his e,ploy\ I, is the market leader inJ I tool manufacturing, and that he is a 
member o core technolo develo ment team which is tasked with developing the company's 
flagship product, the.__ __________ -,---..,....~----' tool. 4 The Petitioner submitted 
copies of two patent applications filed on behalf of.__ _ _. identifying him as one of the inventors on 
each application, and states that his "short-term goal is to continue developing IPs [intellectual 
properties] and trade secrets foj I 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and we agree 
with that determination. The record includes information about the semiconductor industry, indicating 
the industry ranks "at the top of all U.S. exporting industries in recent years," and that continued 
developments in the field have created technological innovation and led to new products, economic 
growth, productivity growth, and new industries. The Petitioner also discussed his company's 
operations and noted that it is developing leading-edge technologies, and is "contributing to the US 
economy by generating valuable IPs and trade secrets, which help to bring billions of dollars from 
different countries including but not limited to China and Taiwan." While the record demonstrates 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 The record indicates that the Petitioner earned a bachelor of science in electrical and electronic engineering from 
.__ ___ _.!University of Engineering and Technology in 2009, as well as ~aster of sr;:ience degree in electrical and 
computer engineering and a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University o~,_ __ :___.}in 2014 and 2017, respectively. 
4 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we will consider information about this prospective position to illustrate the capacity in 
which he intends to work. 
3 
that the Petitioner's proposed work to develop new technologies forD has substantial merit, for 
the reasons discussed below, the evidence is not sufficient to show this endeavor's national 
importance. 
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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&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. We also stated that"[ a ]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
Therefore, to evaluate whether the proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. The 
Petitioner contends that the national importance of his endeavor is evident from his employer's 
business operations and the company's innovative technologies, specifically the company's flagship 
product, the~-------~ tool. But the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the economic 
implications and technological advancements resulting fromc=J' s operations would be attributable 
to his role as ~ I engineer to an extent that his proposed work holds national importance. 
The issue here is not the broader implications of the company's innovations inl I I I or its cumulative effect on the semiconductor manufacturinr industry, but rather the 
potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed work as a [ engineer. 
Accordingly, without sufficient documentary evidence of its broader impact, the Petitioner's work in 
the area o~ land his development of proprietary tools forl I 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. Nor has the 
Petitioner shown that his particular work would have broader implications in the semiconductor 
industry or the engineering field. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substaTial pritive economic effects for our nation. The 
Petitioner submitted a news article indicating that is establishing a research and development 
facility inl !Michigan, that will create approximately 500 jobs and result in a regional 
investment that exceeds $70 million. The appeal brief: however, indicates thatD is the world's 
leading supplier of process control and yield management solutions for the semiconductor and related 
industries with approximately 10,000 employees. While the creation of 500 new jobs as a result of 
I Is expansion of its operations into Michigan is noteworthy, the record does not include sufficient 
information or evidence demonstrating that the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation is 
attributable to the Petitioner's present or future work as ~ I engineer in itsl I 
California office. 
The record includes a letter froml I Head o±1 d 
who claims that the Petitioner is "actively contributing to the latest technology development in 
~--~!detection," and further claims that "without our tools, it is nearly impossible for chip 
4 
manufacturers to fabricate a functioning integrated circuit." I I asserts that the technologies 
developed bp thus have national interest due to their critical nature. The Petitioner also submitted 
a letter from_ l Senior Scientist withLJ s~------~Design Group, who 
states that the Petitioner has made four invention disclosures during the course of his employment, 
two of which are represented by the patent applications noted above, and the remaining two with patent 
applications in the process of being filed. He states that the Petitioner's inventions "have directly 
contributed to our latest eneration of design," and that his 
work on semiconductoi~-----~"is the cornerstone of our current technology program named 
I 
Additionally, the Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor forD has implications of national 
security, noting that in 2017, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology proposed 
to continue semiconductor innovation to mitigate the threat posed by Chinese industrial policy and to 
strengthen the U.S. economy. In support of this assertion, the Petitioner submitted Internet articles 
from Theµ££,Markets and Financial Times discussing the issue. We note that while each article 
notes thaL_J is an industry leader inc=Jproduction, it also bestows the same accolades on other 
competitor companies based in the U.S. and abroad. For example, the article in Financial Times 
indicates that other companies, such as U.S.-basedl I andl Land Japan's 
I 
~dominate the market for equipment that can deposit I I transistors and other 
._ __ ____.!components on to a single chip." 
The Petitioner has not established that his proposed work forD has implications beyond his 
employer and its customers at a level sufficient to establish the national importance of his endeavor. 
While I indicates that the Petitioner's work "has implications in national security and 
intellectual property protection," the record does not show that the specific work he proposes to 
undertake offers original innovations that advance the semiconductor industry, or otherwise has 
broader implications in the field of engineering in general. 5 Moreover, the record does not corroborate 
the assertion o~ I who claims that the Petitioner's work "has contributed to the overall technology 
advancement in the American semiconductor industry," given his claim that the Petitioner's work has 
also "helpeal._ _ ____.b maintain its lead in semiconducto~ l."6 As the Petitioner has not 
established that his specific endeavor's prospective impact supports a finding of national importance, 
he has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor 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. 
5 Although the record includes two patent applications attributed to the Petitioner's inventions, he is not the sole inventor 
noted on each application. For instance, he is one of two inventors, and one of six inventors, respectively. 
6 In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the lev~g rnµi.onal.,importance 
because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. While the letters fromL___J andl__Jemphasize 
C7s position as· 
I l" the record does not demonstrate that an impact on this single company and its projects necessarily 
equates to a broader impact on the industry, or otherwise has broader implications in the semiconductor industry. 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established he 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