dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 05, 2024 In Re: 23093438 
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/or 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner merits a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. 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 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. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they 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; 
• 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 Petitioner is an electrical engineer who proposes to continue working in this field, working for a 
company providing services 
such as energy audits, alternative energy sources and consulting regarding 
energy efficiency in homes and businesses. In his decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner 
is eligible for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. So the sole issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner merits a national interest waiver. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, concerning the substantial merit and national 
importance of the proposed endeavor, 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. Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was of substantial merit, but that he 
did not establish that it would be of national importance, noting that the evidence did not show that it 
would have "implications beyond his prospective employer." On appeal, the Petitioner refers to the 
website of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which includes statements about 
the value of energy efficiency, stating that this shows "that the use of energy efficiency is a matter that 
is the subject of governmental initiatives." While he acknowledges that simply working in such an 
industry is not sufficient to show the national importance of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner 
states that his proposed endeavor would potentially impact his community and the environment, and 
is in an area that "is such a critical issue to the country." 
The Petitioner correctly states that our decision in Dhanasar sought to avoid emphasizing the 
geographic breadth of an endeavor when determining its national importance. Id. at 890. However, 
petitioners proposing endeavors with a primarily local footprint must still demonstrate the broader 
implications of that endeavor. In this case, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient details regarding 
how his proposed endeavor of working as an electrical engineer with a U.S. company would 
potentially have broader implications. Contrary to his assertion, providing services in the area of 
energy efficiency, without more, is not sufficient to show national importance. In Dhanasar, we noted 
that broader implications might be demonstrated by improved manufacturing processes or medical 
advances, for example, or through evidence of a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other 
substantial positive economic effects. But the Petitioner does not propose to introduce innovations in 
1 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 
energy efficiency which could potentially affect the wider industry, nor does he claim that his endeavor 
would have economic effects that would be of national interest. And while he briefly mentions that 
his long-term goal would be to start his own company, he has not provided specifics regarding this 
business or asserted that it would potentially have substantial positive effects in terms of job creation 
or revenue, or would otherwise be of national importance. 2 
As for the potential environmental implications of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner again refers 
to the EPA website. According to this evidence, the benefits of improved energy efficiency include 
lower greenhouse gas emissions and decreased water use. But we note that this evidence primarily 
focuses on the measures that can be taken by local governments to encourage energy efficiency in 
government, business, and residential settings, and thus does not directly support the implications of 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In addition, as stated by the Director, the Petitioner has not shown 
how his provision of services such as energy audits and energy efficiency consulting would have 
implications beyond the individuals or organizations that would be his employer's customers, or how 
this work would impact the broader field of energy efficiency. 
The remainder of the evidence consists of reference letters from the Petitioner's colleagues and 
employers discussing his previous work experience as an electrical engineer and maintenance 
manager, and reports concerning conditions in the overall energy efficiency industry. The Petitioner 
does not assert that these documents pertain to the national importance of his proposed endeavor. As 
he has not provided sufficient detail regarding his proposed endeavor, or provided supporting evidence 
demonstrating how it would potentially have broader economic, environmental, or other implications 
in the energy efficiency industry, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not 
established its national importance. Therefore the Petitioner does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 
III. CONCLUSION 
A petitioner must meet all three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework in order to establish 
their eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the 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 second and third prongs of the framework. 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 an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 The Petitioner submitted a business plan for his own company, including economic and job creation projections, with a 
petition filed after this petition was denied. Because a petitioner must meet eligibility requirements at the time of filing 
the petition, we will not consider that business plan in our decision. 8 C .F.R. § l 03 .2(b )( l ). 
3