dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 07, 2023 In Re: 28767568 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an electrical engineer and assistant project manager, seeks second preference 
immigrant classification, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to 
this EB-2 immigrant 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 
the Petitioner qualified for the classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree, but had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal, concluding that the 
record did not satisfy the first Dhanasar prong, and reserved our opinion on the second and third 
Dhanasar prongs. See Matter ofDhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). The matter is now before 
us on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to 
reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner claims that we "failed to properly take into consideration the 
impact of [the Petitioner's] proposed endeavor from a STEM perspective" and submits a report by the 
National Science and Technology Council on "Critical and Emerging Technologies List Update" 
submitted to the White House in February 2022. However, the Petitioner does not address how this 
report demonstrates national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor other than that his 
endeavor is in STEM field. We already noted in our prior decision, incorporated here by reference, 1 
1 See ID# 26399895 (AAO May 04, 2023). 
that even though the Petitioner's endeavor falls within a STEM field, this does not automatically show 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. We cited to USCIS policy manual stating that the STEM 
endeavor must meet the first prong of having substantial merit and national importance under the first 
prong of Dhanasar. See 6 USCIS Policy manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
Aside from this report, the Petitioner has not asserted any new facts or provide other documentary 
evidence to establish national importance of his endeavor. Therefore, we will dismiss the Petitioner's 
motion to reopen. 
Additionally, the Petitioner asserts that we erred in "failure to provide analysis as to the petitioner's 
eligibility under the second and third Dhanasar prongs" and as a result, the Petitioner did not have "an 
opportunity to rebut any findings under the law that may have been prejudicial to the Petitioner's 
ability to properly argue the merits of his case." Although the Petitioner asks that we reopen the case, 
he is not offering any new fact or evidence but claiming an error or incorrect application of law and 
policy. Therefore, we will consider this claim as a motion to reconsider. 
As we previously concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy the first prong of the Dhanasar, he is 
not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion and the remaining arguments 
concerning the eligibilities under second and third prongs of Dhanasar need not be discussed. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings 
on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-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). On motion, the Petitioner does not rely on any precedent law, 
regulations, or policy to support his claim that we must provide analysis on all three prongs of 
Dhanasar on appeal. In addition, the Petitioner was given the opportunity to provide additional 
documentation and arguments regarding these remaining prongs when the Director issued a request 
for evidence (RFE) on March 24, 2022. 
The Petitioner further contends on motion to reconsider that we misapplied Dhanasar's standards in 
determining that his endeavor does not have national importance under the first prong. However, the 
Petitioner does not specifically point to where and how we erred. Instead, the Petitioner offers the 
same claims made in the RFE and in the initial filing - that the Petitioner's endeavor is nationally 
important because his past work and projects involved critical infrastructures in several countries, such 
as Venezuela and Ghana, and are international in scale. However, our prior decision correctly 
evaluated the Petitioner's past experience and skills as factors to be considered in the second prong -
whether he is well-positioned to advance his endeavor. In determining national importance under the 
Dhanasar' s first prong, the Petitioner needs to demonstrate the "potential prospective impact" of his 
specific endeavor, and we evaluate whether the Petitioner's specific endeavor has broad implications 
or substantial economic effects as contemplated by Dhanasar. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-
90. 
In our prior decision, we discussed the evidence raised by the Petitioner on motion and ultimately 
concluded that the record did not provide sufficient information and objective evidence to establish 
how his proposed endeavor of being employed as an electrical engineer and a project manager would 
"extend beyond his employer and its customers to impact the field of energy systems maintenance and 
design or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance." As a 
result, we dismissed the Petitioner's appeal under the preponderance of evidence standard. On motion, 
2 
I 
the Petitioner disagrees with our conclusions, but he has not provided a sufficient basis for 
reconsideration by showing that we erred as a matter of law or policy. 
The Petitioner also claims that his current employment as an "IT Assistant Project Manager" atl 
~----~l "a global, multinational bank which was named thel Iin 2012," 
demonstrates national importance of his endeavor. The Petitioner explains that he is "leading a crucial 
project forl Ithat is both national and international in scope" and "is in charge of a software 
transition that will update the entirety ofl Icomputing systems to VitechCORE technology." 
The Petitioner, however, does not explain how his position as a project manager over software 
transition at a bank is related to his initial proposed endeavor as an electrical engineer who "would 
bring his technical knowledge of circuit panel design to numerous utility companies around the 
country." While the Petitioner asks that we reconsider our previous decision, he does not identify and 
discuss specific and relevant evidence that he believes we overlooked or misconstrued in arriving at 
our conclusions, or how we misapplied law, regulation or USCIS policy. Instead, the Petitioner 
reiterates general arguments regarding his endeavor's national importance that were previously 
considered and dismissed on appeal. Accordingly, we will dismiss his motion to reconsider. 
We conclude that the Petitioner's submission of additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen 
does not establish eligibility. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our 
previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our 
decision. Therefore, the combined motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3