dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 25, 2024 In Re: 32748885 
Appeal of Nebraska 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 and as an individual of 
exceptional ability, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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). 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Next, a 
petitioner must then establish 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 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; 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner emphasized throughout this proceeding that he has over 11 years of experience in the 
electrical engineering and information technology (IT) fields, as well as relating college degrees. He 
initially submitted statements explaining his proposed endeavor, indicating that he will: 
[P]rovide his specialized services in telecommunications, electrical engineering, 
software engineering, and market analysis to impact the energy industry in the United 
States. [He] emphasizes the importance of product design and innovation. He will 
conduct thorough market research, identify emerging trends, and address customer 
needs through the development of innovative product concepts ... 
My proposed venture seeks to [ address cybersecurity threats] through the 
implementation of wireless communication systems, IoT solutions, sustainable energy 
technologies, and community development initiatives, promoting digital inclusion, job 
creation, technological advancements, enhanced cybersecurity, and a holistic approach 
to social and economic progress in less favored areas. 
The Petitioner submitted a variety of documentation, including evidence of his education and 
experience, statements describing certain aspects of his proposed endeavor and the industries he will 
work in, as well as recommendation and support letters. He referenced industry reports and articles, 
discussing, among other things, recent technological advances in mobile telecommunications systems 
and their global significance, the impacts of cybersecurity threats on our nation's infrastructure, and 
the important role of startup investors on the U.S. economy. 
He contends that through his endeavor he will contribute "to a culture of continuous learning and 
growth," with a focus on cybersecurity which "is pivotal in safeguarding critical infrastructure and 
data, instilling technological trust and resilience against the ever-evolving landscape of cyber threats." 
He also asserts that he will "focus on environmentally friendly solutions [which] signifies a 
conscientious approach to sustainable technology development, aligning science and technology with 
the imperative goals of minimizing environmental impact, reducing carbon emissions, and fostering 
the adoption of renewable energies. 
Notably, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) asking for a detailed description of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor, supported with documentary evidence. However, the Petitioner did not 
sufficiently address this aspect. In the RFE response, he reiterated various IT-related tasks he would 
perform during his employment as an electrical engineer, under headings such as product design and 
2 
development, R&D and team management, project management and execution, IoT architecture and 
connectivity solutions, global market expansion and product localization, and cybersecurity. He 
explained that he will "work for American companies or work as a consultant focusing on the energy, 
telecommunications, and railway sectors. Specifically, my consultancy approach allows for flexible 
and impactful contributions in these sectors, without having to establish a new business entity." 
The Petitioner also provided a job offer letter froml l(Mr. K-), a manager with W-E- as 
evidence of his prospective work plans. Mr. K- indicated that he wishes to hire the petitioner as a 
systems specialist without further explanation of what the duties of that position will entail. While 
Mr. K- stated that he is "convinced that [the Petitioner's] qualifications and capabilities are particularly 
relevant to our company 's direction and will uniquely serve to better the products, solutions, and 
services we provide," he did not explain how the Petitioner's employment as a systems specialist with 
W-E- will produce benefits to our nation at a level commensurate with national importance. Though 
this letter indicates that a U.S. employer is willing to hire him, neither the Petitioner nor Mr. K- offered 
a detailed description explaining the means through which he will prospectively deliver electrical 
engineering and IT-related consultancy services, supported by documentary evidence. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner submitted 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, they 
also concluded in part, that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor had national 
importance. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and relies on evidence submitted to the Director 
which they reviewed and considered in denying the petition. Based on our de novo review, we agree 
with the Director that the record does not offer evidence sufficient to translate how the Petitioner ' s 
specific work in the field stands to sufficiently impact U.S. interests or the energy, 
telecommunications, and railway industries more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
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 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. 
The Petitioner alleges on appeal that the Director "did not fully grasp the systemic influence [his] 
endeavor would exert on various industries and the transformative role it could play in fostering 
growth and bolstering competitiveness on a national scale." He contests the Director's determination 
that the record lacks sufficient evidence "linking his proposed endeavor to substantial economic 
benefits commensurate with national importance." He points to the evidence in the record about U.S. 
government initiatives, and the importance of the industries in which the Petitioner will seek 
employment and STEM employment in the United States, asserting that he "possesses the expertise to 
3 
address critical challenges and opportumt1es in these sectors, [ w ]hether it is opt1m1zmg energy 
systems, enhancing telecommunications networks, or improving railway infrastructure ... " 
When 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 id. at 889. Much of the Petitioner's evidence focuses on 
the importance of industries in which he will work and the benefits of STEM employment generally, 
rather than the benefits of his specific proposed endeavor to our nation. In evaluating the evidence, 
eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 369. Collectively considering the referenced articles, reports, and statistics, 
we conclude that they do not sufficiently support a finding that his specific proposed endeavor has 
national importance. 
The Petitioner also provides an expert opinion letter prepared by I I(Mr. F-), who is the 
president of his own electrical engineering consulting firm. Mr. F- praises the Petitioner's education, 
experience, past success, personal qualities, and the results he achieved. However, these qualities 
relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, that the individual is well-positioned to 
advance their proposed endeavor, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner's specific endeavor has national 
importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
Importantly, Mr. F- does not specifically explain how the Petitioner, through his proposed endeavor 
will have a significant prospective impact on the United States, including the national or global 
implications of his work products on the U.S. energy, telecommunications, and railway systems, its 
potential to employ U.S. workers, or through other positive economic effects. The information offered 
in his letter is largely limited to general observations about the Petitioner's qualifications and the 
occupation and industries in which he will work. He does not offer any analytical roadmap that lays 
out the basis for his opinion that the Petitioner meets Dhanasar 's first prong. Where an opinion is not 
in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, USCIS is not required to accept it or 
may give it less weight. See Matter ofSea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817 (Comm'r 1988). We conclude Mr. 
F-' s opinion letter provided lends little probative value to the matter here. 
Similarly, the Petitioner provided reference letters from former employers and colleagues who outline 
his work accomplishments and put forth general statements that assert his services would be beneficial 
to our country should he immigrate to the United States. Clearly, the letter writers hold the Petitioner 
in high regard. However, the authors do not provide sufficient clarity regarding the specific endeavor 
that the Petitioner will focus on should this petition be approved. For example, the letter froml I I Idiscusses the work the Petitioner performed when they were colleagues at the same firm, 
and he is complimentary of his accomplishments there. While he indicates "I have no doubt that [the 
Petitioner] will continue to achieve remarkable feats in his future career," he does not specifically 
discuss the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and explain how the products and services 
provided therein will significantly impact our nation. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a 
preponderance of evidence that it is qualified for the benefit sought. Chawathe, supra. Here, the 
record does not establish that his proposed endeavor stands to substantially impact the field at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Dhanasar at 890. 
4 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. Because 
this identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally 
required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter ofD­
L-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 568, 576-77 n.10 (BIA 2022) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5