dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
In Re: 23069342 Date: MAY 25, 2023 
Appeal of Texas 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. See 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, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). 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. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification,2 USCIS may, as matter of discretion 3, grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance; (2) that the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements 
of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. Although the decision did not explicitly 
address the Petitioner's qualifications for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, a request for evidence did address these qualifications; the record 
demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the U.S. equivalent of an advanced degree from Venezuela. 
While the Petitioner may be eligible for the EB-2 classification, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that he met any of the three prongs in accordance with the adjudication 
framework in by Matter ofDhanasar . The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm 'r 1998) (NYSDOI) . 
2 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 . 
3 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS ' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature) . 
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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits the decision for Matter ofDhanasar, the decision for Matter ofNew 
York State Department ofTransportation, and a printout from ResearchGate.net showing a percentile 
score for Mookesh Dhanasar. The Petitioner also submits a brief in which he asserts that the Director 
"incorrectly and improperly applied the legal criteria for reviewing an NIW approval," claiming that 
the Petitioner is as qualified as the petitioner in the Dhanasar case. The Petitioner also submits news 
articles discussing illegal immigration, claiming that the Petitioner is not being treated fairly because 
he has chosen to pursue a legal immigration pathway. We note that this argument is not related to 
whether the Petitioner has established his eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner also states the following ( quoted as written): 
Furthermore, the TSC HAS APPLIED A LEGALLY INCORRECT STANDARD 
concerning the National Interest Waiver's "No Job Offer" requirement, and therefore 
has gutted the main purpose of the NIW case. For example, the TSC goes into detail 
arguing about the technical details ofl !proposed endeavor. Legally, an 
applicant's specific job duties and specific job title arl gennane at the end of the Form 
I-485 Adjustment process. But for the NIW case,_ lneeds only to show 
evidence of his high-degree of expertise and impact. All evidence submitted with his 
case effectively demonstrated this!! Discussions about whethe~ lwill continue 
working in his field of expertise ( after he gets his Green Card) is a legal question that 
is adjudicated within the Form I-485 Adjustment process. The NIW is only about 
expertise! 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 
(BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of 
adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that 
has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit 
courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
The Director's decision concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to continue his work as an 
electrical engineer for his own consultancy and maintenance company does not hinge solely on the 
Petitioner's job title or specific duties, but provides a detailed analysis of how the evidence of record 
does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's purported 
expertise as an engineer in the oil and gas industry alone is not sufficient to establish his eligibility for 
a national interest waiver; the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor will have broader 
implications in the field, have a substantial positive economic impact, has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers, or will otherwise serve the national interest. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. 884. The Director's decision also provides a thorough review of the evidence of record and 
explains how the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the 
2 
proposed endeavor, as well as why USCIS could not conclude that the Petitioner is eligible for, and 
merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The Director weighed the law and facts of 
the record appropriately, and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3