dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 14, 2024 In Re: 33944809 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a researcher, 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 established 
that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, but that he 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 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 l&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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 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. Id. 
Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement 
for entry into the occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
1 Profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act. 
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. Matter ofDhanasar, 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, 2 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 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies for underlying EB-2 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but did not establish that a 
waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
Specifically, the Director determined that the Petitioner's endeavor did not meet the Dhanasar 
framework's national importance requirement, nor did the Petitioner establish that, on balance, 
waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 3 Based on our de novo review of 
the record, we agree that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The first 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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Id. at 889. 
On the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Petitioner listed his occupation as 
"electrical engineer" and stated that his job title in the proposed employment was "postdoctoral 
researcher." He provided a statement in which he elaborated that his proposed endeavor will "continue 
his research on investigating the integration of renewable energy sources into existing energy 
infrastructure and analyzing the impact of distributed energy resources on power system efficiency 
and cost-effectiveness in order to enhance the resilience and reliability of the U.S. power grid." The 
Petitioner asserted that he currently is a doctoral student at a U.S. university and plans to pursue the 
proposed endeavor "while earning [his] Ph.D. in electrical engineering" in his current university 
program and then, upon graduation, he intends to continue the proposed endeavor by "pursu[ing] a 
position as a postdoctoral researcher" at the same U.S. university. 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in 
concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
3 The Director also found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and that the Petitioner is well­
positioned to advance it. 
2 
In support of his claim that his research is of national importance, the Petitioner argued that his work 
would strengthen the resilience of the U.S. power grid. He asserted that 80% of the past power grid 
failures in the United States were due to weather-related events, which have also caused nearly twice 
as many power failures, and that power failures are increasing. According to the Petitioner, his 
research as an electrical engineer "directly addresses these challenges with the incorporation of 
sustainable energy supplies for increasing accessibility to power and optimizing the efficiency of the 
electricity network" and that his work is an "integral component in the restructuring of the American 
power grid." In response to a request for evidence (RFE) that, among other things, his proposed 
endeavor has national importance, the Petitioner asserted that his proposed endeavor would continue 
his research to: (1) optimize the integration of various renewable energy sources, such as solar and 
wind, into the U.S. power grid; (2) dynamically analyze transmission and distribution networks, 
particularly in asymmetrical configurations with distributed energy resources (DERs), to understand 
and mitigate challenges posed by high DER penetration in the grid, including voltage stability and 
power quality issues; and (3) explore the application of novel hybrid DC circuit breakers in distribution 
systems to improve the protection and reliability of networks incorporating high levels of DC sources 
and loads, such as those in electric vehicle charging stations and solar PV installations. The Petitioner 
submitted a letter ofrecommendation from Dr. S-, his current academic advisor, his resume, academic 
records, publications he has authored, information about asserted funding sources, and government 
agency reports and articles. The Director ultimately found that the Petitioner's evidence was not 
sufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor because he had not shown 
implications beyond the university, its clients and employees, or any other individual or entity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner first asserts that the Director failed to assess the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor. The Petitioner contends that he has already submitted sufficient evidence of his 
eligibility for the national interest waiver, including the national importance of his proposed endeavor, 
which he claims may help to provide alternative energy during power outages, especially in urban 
areas of the United States. In support of these arguments, the Petitioner re-states the description of his 
endeavor and excerpts his previous statements in the record. He also contends that the Director 
incorrectly evaluated the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and failed to consider all of the relevant 
evidence, resulting in an abuse of discretion. USCIS may, as matter of discretion, grant a national 
interest waiver to a Petitioner who meets the eligibility requirements outlined in our precedent decision 
in Dhanasar. 4 According to the USCIS Policy Manual, if USCIS denies a request as a matter of 
discretion, the denial will explain the reasons the request was not granted. 1 USCIS Policy Manual 
E.9(B)(3) https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Contrary to the Petitioner's contentions, the 
Director's decision in this matter analyzed the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested benefit and 
provided explanations for the denial. 
In determining national importance, "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." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. To satisfy 
the national importance requirement, the Petitioner must demonstrate the "potential prospective impact" 
of his work. We recognize the importance of research on maintaining power grids and note that the 
Director found the Petitioner's endeavor to have substantial merit. But the relevant question is not the 
4 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 
importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus 
on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Matter ofDhanasar at 
889. The term "endeavor" is more specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer 
details not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person 
proposes to undertake specifically within that occupation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Simply conducting research or being employed in 
an occupation does not constitute an endeavor for the purposes of these proceedings. To the extent 
his current doctoral research and expressed desire to continue that research constitute an endeavor, the 
record does not contain sufficient evidence describing the Petitioner's endeavor and its future potential 
impact. For example, the recommendation letters describe the Petitioner's contributions resulting 
from his current graduate work developing models for optimizing electrical power grid strategies. The 
Petitioner's current Ph.D. advisor states that this work "is highly aligned with [the Petitioner's] overall 
goal of making breakthroughs in renewable energy" and that "[t]he methodology he employed in the 
project described above is relevant to his efforts pertaining to renewable energy, and the operation of 
water treatment facilities and power grids have considerable overlap." However, the record does not 
demonstrate the improvements or advancements they assert come from their research endeavor have 
national or global impact or broader implications. 
The Petitioner further asserts on appeal that the Director improperly replaced consideration of the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor with consideration of the Petitioner's current work. 
However, the Petitioner initially asked that his current work be considered as part of the national 
importance standard, claiming that "the proposed research on investigating the integration of 
renewable energy sources into existing energy infrastructure in order to enhance the resilience and 
reliability of the U.S. power grid, including his research at Louisiana State University, is therefore 
also nationally important." (Emphasis added.) In his own statements, the Petitioner emphasized that 
he intends to continue his current research: (1) while completing his doctoral program; and (2) 
thereafter at the post-doctoral level at the same university where he is currently studying. Specifically, 
in response to the RFE, he asserted that he sought to "confirm that his proposed endeavor is a direct 
continuation of his previous achievements as a researcher." In addition, the letter of support that he 
provided to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor also discusses the Petitioner's 
current work as a graduate student. Therefore, because the Petitioner repeatedly claimed that the 
proposed endeavor will be a continuation of his current research work at the same institution, he has 
not shown on appeal that the Director improperly considered evidence of the Petitioner's current work 
in assessing the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 5 The Petitioner has not established 
that his proposed work for the university at which he currently studies has broader implications within 
his field at a level sufficient to establish the national importance of his endeavor. While he asserts that 
his work is important to the maintenance of the U.S. power grid, he does not sufficiently explain or 
demonstrate how his future work at the school stands to affect the U.S. power grid. Nor does the 
record show, for instance, that the specific work the Petitioner proposes to undertake offers original 
5 Although the Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor involves continuing his post-doctoral research at the same 
university at which he is currently completing his Ph.D. program, the record here does not show that the university has 
agreed to employ the Petitioner in the future. Consequently, in any future NTW adjudication where: (1) the Petitioner is 
required to establish that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor in accordance with the second prong of 
Dhanasar in order for the NIW petition to be approved; and (2) he expresses his intent to continue the proposed endeavor 
in this specific manner, then he must establish that he can continue his research at the same university after graduation 
without employment or funding. 
4 
innovations to impact the field nationally, or even globally, or otherwise broadly implicates matters 
rising to a level of national importance. 
Here, the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's conclusion that he did not establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the remaining eligibility requirements for 
the requested national interest waiver, i.e., whether, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement 
would benefit the United States. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies 
are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate 
decision); 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 the applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework by 
establishing the national importance of the proposed endeavor, we conclude that he has not established 
he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5