dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 25, 2023 In Re: 26375007 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an electrical engineer, seeks classification as either an advanced degree professional 
or as an individual of exceptional ability. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualifies as an advanced degree professional, the record did not establish that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement is 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 l&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 establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification, as either a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability, the petitioner must then establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job 
offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither 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 USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 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) . 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional, based upon 
the Petitioner possessing the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering 
followed by at least five years of progressive experience in electrical engineering. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2) (a U. S. bachelor's degree or the foreign equivalent followed by at least five years of 
progressive experience in the specialty is equivalent to a master's degree). Because the Director 
determined that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional, the Director did not make 
a finding as to whether the Petitioner established that he is an individual of exceptional ability. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to establish and operate a company in I I South 
Carolina providing electrical engineering consulting services, specializing in automation and robotics 
particularly for the automotive industry. The Director determined that the Petitioner established only 
the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. The issues on appeal are whether the Petitioner has 
established the proposed endeavor's national importance, whether he is well-positioned to advance it, 
and whether, on balance, a waiver of the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
In determining that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, 
the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the 
proposed endeavor stands to have implications beyond the company and its clientele to impact the 
field more broadly or to have substantial positive economic effects. The Director also noted that, 
although the Petitioner emphasizes his expertise and experience as evidence of the endeavor's national 
importance, the focus of the first Dhanasar prong is on the proposed endeavor itself and not the 
petitioner's background. Similarly, the Director noted that although the Petitioner discusses the 
importance of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) professionals, in 
determining national importance, the focus is on the impact of what a petitioner intends to do rather 
than the occupational classification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief in which he restates the claims made in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE). Indeed, the Petitioner's RFE response brief is essentially 
resubmitted on appeal. In the brief: the Petitioner discusses the management analyst and consulting 
occupation, the benefits of automation and robotics in the automotive industry, and the business plan's 
financial and job creation projections. However, the brief does not address the deficiencies that the 
Director found as to establishing the proposed endeavor's national importance. 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national or global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances, may have national importance. Id. Additionally, an endeavor that is 
regionally focused may nevertheless have national importance, such as an endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
2 
Upon review, we agree with the Director that the record does not establish the proposed endeavor's 
national importance. For example, we agree that, in determining whether a proposed endeavor has 
national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in 
which an individual will work; instead, we focus on the potential prospective impact of the "specific 
endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Additionally, we agree with the Director that evidence of the Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and record 
of success generally relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the [noncitizen]" and whether they are well-positioned to advance it. 
Id. at 890. 
Although the Director noted these deficiencies in the decision, on appeal the Petitioner restates the 
claims that both his professional work experience and the importance of the consulting and automation 
industries establish the endeavor's national importance. The Petitioner does not address or attempt to 
overcome the findings of the Director that these claims relate to either the second Dhanasar prong or 
to the industry overall, rather than the specific proposed endeavor. Moreover, the Petitioner does not 
identify any specific legal or factual errors in the Director's finding that the Petitioner did not establish 
national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner characterizes himself as a "rare professional" with "unparalleled experience." 
The appeal brief makes many impressive claims, such as the claim that the company will "start a chain 
reaction, positively impacting working conditions, employee safety, engagement, and time­
effectiveness" leading to an improvement in the "quality of life" in the United States, and that the 
endeavor will "directly contribute to the betterment of the entire U.S. economy." However, these 
claims are not supported by the evidence in the record. The record includes the Petitioner's 
educational credentials, work experience letters, a professional plan statement, and a business plan. 
Although the evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner is an experienced electrical engineer, that he 
has worked in the automotive manufacturing industry, and that he intends to establish a consulting 
business, the evidence does not demonstrate that the potential prospective impact of this endeavor 
includes improving the entire U.S. economy or the general quality of life in the United States. 
In Dhanasar we concluded that STEM teaching has substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational 
interests, but that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the activities of one individual STEM 
teacher would impact the education field more broadly. Id. at 893. The same is true here. The 
Petitioner has not established that the benefits of his proposed endeavor will extend beyond his own 
clients or employees to impact the electrical engineering, automotive, or robotics fields more broadly. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by 
the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We acknowledge 
the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to the second and third prongs of Dhanasar but, having found 
that the evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as to national importance, we reserve 
our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the remaining Dhanasar prongs. 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 is otherwise ineligible). 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4