dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 29, 2024 In Re: 34867575 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an electrical engineer and project manager, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional or a person of exceptional ability, 
as well as a discretionary national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 
classification. 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 although the Petitioner 
qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, the record did not establish 
that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
This matter is now before us on appeal, which we review de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 
26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing his eligibility 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I.LAW 
To be eligible for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first establish eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 visa classification, as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional 
ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(A), (B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(l). 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they warrant a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. MatterofDhanasar, 26 I&NDec. 884,889 (AAO 2016), provides 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions, which states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner establishes that: (1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) they are well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and (3) on balance, 
waiving the job offer and thus labor certification requirements would benefit the United States. Id. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in holding 
that USCIS' decision on a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found, and the record (including evidence of the Petitioner's U.S. bachelor and master 
of engineering degrees and related university transcripts) shows, that he qualifies for the underlying 
EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(k)(l)-(2), (k)(3)(i)(A). 
The remaining issue on appeal is whether he warrants a discretionary national interest waiver under 
the Dhanasar framework and its requisite three prongs, any one of which is dispositive. Under this 
framework, the first prong, "substantial merit" and "national importance," focuses on the specific 
endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit 
may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, 
culture, health, or education; and in assessing whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 2 
The Director ultimately determined that although the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and the 
Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his endeavor, the evidence did not show that it has national 
importance and thus he did not meet Dhanasar's first prong. 3 On appeal, be does not submit any new 
evidence but clarifies his proposed endeavor and reiterates his eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
We conclude that the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance. 
The Petitioner intends to continue to work as an electrical engineer and project manager in this country 
by engaging "in the engineering design, development and construction of renewable energy generation 
systems" that will improve efficiency and reliability in electricity and energy grid capacity. 
Although the proposed endeavor as an electrical engineer and project manager in the field ofrenewable 
energy has merit, the evidence does not demonstrate that it would have significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers, have substantial positive economic impact in this country, broadly impact the industry 
on national or global level beyond his potential employer and customers, or otherwise have broader 
economic or societal implications rising to the level of national importance. Id. at 889-890. 
In reasserting that his proposed endeavor has national importance, the Petitioner relies on his academic 
credentials and past experience as an electrical engineer and project manager as indicated in his 
resume, statements, prior job offer letters, support letters and general industry reports and articles on 
the significance of the industry. He further reiterates that, given his background, expertise, and 
demand for qualified individuals in the industry, which has been identified as a critical and emerging 
field by government agencies and other entities, his proposed endeavor will have substantial positive 
economic and societal impact. However, the referenced evidence and assertions focus on his skills 
and profession, which relate to Dhanasar's second prong and pertain to whether he is well positioned 
for his endeavor and "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
For assessing the national importance of a proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong, we 
consider and look for evidence of the endeavor's "potential prospective impact" and evaluate whether 
the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake has broader national significance, rather 
2 The Director found (in a request for evidence) that the Petitioner's vaguely defined proposed endeavor impedes Dhanasar 
evaluation. Considering his overall assertions and evidence, we conclude that it is sufficiently detailed and do not further 
address this issue here as Dhanasar's national importance prong is dispositive of this appeal, as discussed below. 
3 The Director also determined that the evidence did not satisfy Dhanasar's third prong. 
2 
than the importance of his profession or industry in which he proposes to engage. Id. at 889. Here, 
as an electrical engineer and project manager, he proposes to engage in designing and developing clean 
renewable energy systems that he claims will improve efficiency in energy capacity and quality of 
related systems in an environmentally sustainable manner. However, he does not specifically claim, 
and the record does not contain evidence, that he himself has developed or will develop novel systems 
that will broadly impact the industry in the United States. The record also does not contain sufficient 
evidence that his claimed engineering methods and managerial expertise he acquired through his past 
experience were or would be adopted by the industry here or otherwise have far-reaching implications. 
Although we acknowledge that the proposed endeavor could have a positive impact on his career, the 
Petitioner has not persuasively explained, and the record (primarily including his assertions, support 
letters, and the general industry reports and articles) does not demonstrate how his proposed endeavor 
to continue to work as an electrical engineer and project manager would have the national or global 
implications for the U.S. industry as he claims, beyond his potential employer and future clients. 
For instance, the record lacks detail and probative evidence on the claimed economic impact and hiring 
potential, such as financial or employment projections, directly attributable to the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also does not claim that he himself will employee U.S. workers or that his position with 
a company will result in hiring of U.S. workers. Further, he does not specify, and the record lacks 
evidence as to, how his proposed work otherwise stands to impact U.S. economy or benefit 
economically depressed areas. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890 (holding that proposed endeavors with 
"significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or "substantial positive economic effects, particularly 
in an economically depressed area" may indicate national importance). Other than generally 
reiterating the importance of the renewable energy industry, which he claims will create construction 
and operation jobs in the field, and reasserting that his endeavor would also significantly benefit 
(unspecified) "rural and low income communities," the record lacks detailed, objective evidence as to 
how he will specifically facilitate and elevate the significance of his proposed work to a national level. 
Further, he does not delineate his future innovative development goals and how he will be able to 
achieve related goals he claims would provide significant benefits. The Petitioner's general assertions 
based on his background, support letters, and general industry reports therefore do not show that his 
proposed endeavor would have "significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or "substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. 
The Petitioner nonetheless continues to rely on his academic credentials, expertise, and the importance 
of the energy industry. However, as noted, the importance of a proposed endeavor is determined by 
its specific potential prospective impact, not by the occupation or industry, in which he proposes to 
engage based on his qualifications. Id. at 889-890. The purpose of the national interest waiver thus 
is not to facilitate a U.S. job search where there may be job opportunities. Anyone seeking this waiver 
must establish that "the specific endeavor" they propose to undertake has national importance. Id. 
He also claims that his educational background and proposed endeavor fall within a science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics ("STEM") field. But, here, the record does not contain 
persuasive explanation or specific evidence that being an electrical engineer and project manager with 
development goals in the stated subjects, whether in a STEM field, has broader implications, or it 
specifically furthers STEM objectives in a nationally significant manner, or otherwise show national 
importance as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id.; see also 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), 
3 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (stating that with respect to the first prong, as in all cases, the 
evidence still must show that a STEM endeavor has national importance). 
While we acknowledge his desire to contribute to the U.S. renewable energy industry and its economy, 
he has not established with specific, probative evidence that his proposed endeavor will have broader 
implications in his field, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or have substantial 
economic or societal effects beyond his future employer and clients. He has not met Dhanasar' s 
national importance prong and thus has not established his eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 75-76 (stating that petitioners bear the burden of establishing 
their eligibility and under this standard we consider the quality, such as relevance and probative value, 
of the evidence, in addition to quantity); Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
As the identified ground for denial, the Petitioner's inability to satisfy Dhanasar's first prong is 
dispositive of this appeal, we do not address here the Director's determinations as to the second and 
third Dhanasar prongs for a national interest waiver. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
(stating that agencies are not required to reach issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4