dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 04, 2024 In Re: 33359060 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an electrical engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. The matter is now 
before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
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 Christo '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 they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&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 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
The Petitioner initially indicated that he intended to use his "expertise and knowledge working as an 
[e]lectrical [e]ngineer in the United States," so that he could "benefit U.S. companies looking to 
innovate their performance and technologies." Given his experience with electromagnetic 
compatibility (EMC) and electromagnetic interference (EMT) testing, the Petitioner asserted he would 
ensure "correct functionality of airplanes and other vehicles or devices," and help airline 
manufacturers improve safety features to address EMI. In his professional plan, he provided a 
summary of his experience working as an electrical engineer in the aviation industry particularly on 
EMT/EMC testing, including lightning and high-intensity radiation field (HIRF) testing in avionic 
systems. Ultimately, the Petitioner asserted that, based on his experience and knowledge in the 
aviation industry, he will be able to work with U.S. companies to "improve technologies, optimize 
investments, and help create new ideas and designs in the field ... [ and] will focus on innovating in 
different aspects of [ e ]lectrical [ e ]ngineering, mostly in aircrafts." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence requesting a more detailed description of the 
proposed endeavor, the Petitioner's asserted he would specifically "work in the U[nited [S]tates as an 
electromagnetic environment effect engineer specializing in research, testing, and developing new 
technologies," adding that he would "primarily focus on the [ a ]ircraft industry, leveraging his sound 
experience in the field." According to the Petitioner, electromagnetic environmental effect "is a highly 
specialized subject matter [that] cover[s] all aspects of electromagnetic engineering," and allows 
companies to "mitigate risks such as equipment failures and losses, reduction of costs, actions to avoid 
damages to infrastructure, and undue injuries and tragic fatalities." 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
In support of this endeavor, the record contains a professional plan, two expert opinion letters, and 
several articles, government publications, and executive orders discussing various topics including the 
electrical engineering field, the growing demand for electrical engineers and aerospace engineers, and 
multiple federal initiatives aimed at increasing STEM professionals in the United States, furthering 
the development of critical and emerging technologies, and advancing biotechnology and 
biomanufacturing in the United States. Additionally, the Petitioner submitted letters of 
recommendation from former colleagues and others in the field, as well as evidence of his involvement 
in securing a U.S. patent for his former employer on the creation of a lightening protection system for 
aircrafts. 2 
Upon review of the complete record, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established 
the national importance of his endeavor because the record did not show his work would result in 
broader implications to his field, beyond the benefit to his prospective employers. Moreover, the 
Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that his endeavor had significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts general disagreement with the Director's decision, and requests a de 
novo review of the record. Notably, however, the Petitioner does not point to specific examples of 
how the Director erred in their analysis or otherwise provide examples of why the Director's decision 
is incorrect. The reason for filing an appeal is to provide an affected party with the means to remedy 
what they perceive as an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact within a decision in a 
previous proceeding. 3 By presenting only general disagreement with the Director's decision, without 
identifying the specific aspects of the denial he considers to be incorrect, the Petitioner has failed to 
sufficiently identify the basis for his appeal. 4 This alone is grounds for dismissal. Nevertheless, we 
have reviewed the record and agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established the national 
importance of his endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Upon a de novo review of the record, we conclude that, while the articles and reports in the record 
including multiple government reports discussing the U.S. government's interest in STEM fields 
establish the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor, the record does not establish its national 
importance. In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is 
not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we 
focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. 
We therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting 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. 
The Petitioner claims on appeal that his endeavor will have national implications to the field because 
his work will result in enhanced safety standards, technological advancements, economic growth and 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
3 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
4 Matter of Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. 354, 354-55 (BIA 1986). 
3 
compettt1veness, and national security. In addition, he asserts that his endeavor will result in 
substantial positive economic effects because his work will address flight delays thereby avoiding 
substantial costs to airlines, passengers, and the economy. Moreover, the Petitioner claims his 
endeavor will broadly enhance societal welfare through improved aviation safety, environmental 
benefits, economic growth, enhanced global connectivity, technological innovation, and national 
security. Yet, in making these assertions, the Petitioner has not identified ways in which his specific 
endeavor will result in these broad benefits, but rather continues to rely on the collective importance 
of his field. For example, the Petitioner asserts that "[e]lectromagnetic [c]ompatibility (EMC) stands 
as a cornerstone in the realm of aviation, ensuring the safe and reliable operation of aircraft systems 
amidst the complex electromagnetic environment they navigate," yet he does not explain how the 
individual work he may perform, like performing EMC/EMI testing and analysis, HIRF testing, and 
developing lighting protection solutions for his employers will meaningfully impact the field at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
And while we acknowledge the Petitioner's reference to USCIS policy recognizing the importance of 
STEM fields and role of persons with advanced STEM degrees in fostering progress in technological 
advancements, 5 the Petitioner has not shown that his endeavor will foster progress in STEM 
technologies or result in broader implications to his field. The Petitioner claims on appeal that his 
work will have wider implications for technological advancements and enhancements to airplane 
safety, but he does not provide support or explanation explaining how his work will result in these 
advancements or otherwise result in broader implications, rather than providing services to his 
prospective employers. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. We agree with the Director that the record 
establishes the importance of his field and the cumulative impact of engineers in his field, but he has 
not shown how his individual contribution would result in broader implications to the field. Moreover, 
while the Petitioner asserted his intent to train other professionals in his field, he did not establish that 
any training he would provide, while certainly beneficial to his prospective trainees, would result in 
broader implications to the field. In Dhanasar we discussed how teaching would not impact the field 
of education broadly in a manner which rises to national importance. Dhanasar at 893. By extension 
activities which only benefit a small subset of individuals and companies, like the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor, would not rise to a level of national importance. 
Similarly, on appeal the Petitioner continues to rely on his professional experience and background to 
assert the national importance of his endeavor. We recognize the Petitioner's extensive experience in 
the field, as well as his involvement in securing a patent for his former employer, but a petitioner's 
expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the 
focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the 
Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
The testimonial evidence in the record, including the two expert opinion letters and the letters of 
recommendation, also provide little probative value in establishing the national importance of the 
Petitioner's endeavor. For instance, in the expert opinion letter from while Dr. A-A-, they focus 
primarily on the Petitioner's background as well as the importance of the electrical engineering field 
to establish the national importance, concluding that he would provide benefits to U.S. businesses, but 
5 6 USCIS Policy Manual, F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
4 
Dr. A-A- did not provide explain how these benefits and his work would broadly impact the field. 
Likewise, in the opinion letter from C-R-, the broader implications of the Petitioner's endeavor are not 
addressed, rather the letter only provides general information about the importance of electromagnetic 
effects engineering. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from 
universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. 
Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 r&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCrS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding a noncitizen's eligibility. The submission of 
letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also 
Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be 
given expert testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). Here, much 
of the content of the expert opinion letters and the recommendation letters lack probative value with 
respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. 
The record also does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor "has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area." See Dhanasar at 890. While the Petitioner asserts that his work will minimize flight 
delays and disruptions which will ultimately result in cost savings and foster economic growth and job 
creation, he supports this assertion by relying on the cumulative economic benefits of improved flight 
safety rather than his individual endeavor. Although any basic economic activity has the potential to 
positively impact a local economy, the Petitioner has not provided projected employment numbers 
and revenue growth contributable to his specific endeavor to establish how his endeavor will result in 
substantial economic benefits discussed in Dhanasar. Id. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
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. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5