dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 22, 2024 In Re: 30323046 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a power systems project manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that he was eligible for the requested classification or that a waiver of the classification's job 
offer requirement, and thus of the labor certification, would be 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter ofChrista's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that his 
proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance 
requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 
(AAO 2016). Because this 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 remaining 
Dhanasar prong. 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). 
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). 
Once eligibility for the EB-2 visa classification is established, a petitioner 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. at 889, 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 states that he has more than 10 years of experience as an electrical engineer specialized 
in power systems. His proposed endeavor is to be employed as a power systems project manager, 
operating and supervising energy projects in the United States. 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of his education and experience, a cover letter 
describing his proposed endeavor and claimed eligibilitty for a national interest waiver, and a letter of 
interest from his proposed employer, located in North Carolina. He also submitted 
recommendation and support letters, and industry reports and articles discussing the field of electrical 
engineering and identifying engineering as a national initiative in the United States. 
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish his eligibility for the requested 
classification and for the national interest waiver. The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes a 
personal statement, an updated recommendation and ex erience letter, an u dated resume and a letter 
verifying his employment wit __________________ North Carolina. 
In his updated personal statement, the Petitioner states his proposed endeavor is to work with his 
employer, I I to "provide comprehensive support in designing, developing, installing, 
maintaining, and repairing electrical equipment and systems." 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
establish that he was eligible for the requested EB-2 classification, as the record did not demonstrate 
that he possessed five years of full-time, progressive, post-baccalaureate experience. She further 
determined that the Petitioner had established that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor and that he submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has 
1 See also 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
substantial merit. However, she concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his proposed 
endeavor had national importance, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to 
waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. The Director determined that 
the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would produce benefits rising 
to the level of national importance, trigger substantial positive economic impacts, or impact the 
industry more broadly. Additionally, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
national interest factors such as the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit of his prospective 
contributions to the United States, an urgent national interest in his contributions, the potential creation 
of jobs, or that his self-employment does not adversely affect U.S. workers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director "erroneously applied a higher 
standard of proof, ... and has failed to consider the totality of the evidence provided in the adjudication 
of the case." In his brief on appeal, the Petitioner references evidence already in the record and states 
that this evidence demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that he meets the EB-2 
classification and merits a national interest waiver. 
A. Member of Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The Petitioner asserts that he qualifies for advanced degree professional classification by virtue of a 
foreign education equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree and more than five years of post­
baccalaureate experience in the specialty, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). He does 
not make any claim to qualify as an individual with exceptional ability. 
As noted above, a petition for an advanced degree professional must include evidence that a petitioner 
possesses a "United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that 
of baccalaureate [or] A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by 
at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a 
master's degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). In addition, a petitioner must meet all of the eligibility 
requirements of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
In order to show that a petitioner holds a qualifying advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied 
by "[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States advanced degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Alternatively, a petitioner may present 
"[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form ofletters from current or former employer(s) 
showing that the [individual] has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in 
the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
The record includes a diploma, titled Titulo de Ingeniero, and academic transcripts issued to the 
Petitioner by the I IThe Petitioner also submitted an 
academic evaluation, demonstrating that he has a foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in 
electrical engineering awarded on April 9, 2010. The academic evaluation cites to the Electronic 
Database for Global Education (EDGE), which is a web-based resource for the evaluation of foreign 
educational credentials created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions 
3 
Officers (AACRAO). 2 USCIS considers EDGE to be a reliable source of information about foreign 
credentials equivalencies. According to EDGE, the Titulo de Ingeniero represents attainment of a 
level of education comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States. 
As required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B), the Petitioner must document his post-baccalaureate 
experience from April 9, 2010. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l2); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). The Petitioner states that he 
was employed withl Ia mobile service provider in Honduras, from September 
2010 to December 2021 in engineering roles with progressive responsibilities. 
The Director determined that the record does not establish that the Petitioner possessed five years of 
progressive post-baccalaureate experience at the time the petition was filed. Specifically[ the Director 
noted that a letter verifying the Petitioner's employment with I did not state 
that the positions he held were full-time employment. 
After review of the entire record, we conclude that the Petitioner has established by a preponderance 
of the evidence that he possessed five years of progressive, post-baccalaureate experience, in 
accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i), as of the date of filing. Therefore, the Petitioner has 
established that he possesses an advanced degree as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). This portion 
of the Director's decision is withdrawn. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, 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. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual 
will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." See Id. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the 
proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it 
has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n 
endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood 
to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
As noted above, the Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor is to work as an electrical engineer in 
power systems in the United States. With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted a letter fromD 
a North Carolina "design and build firm specializing in every facet of Outdoor 
Living." states its interest in hiring the Petitioner as a "power systems project 
manager." The letter includes a description of the position stating that the primary job responsibility 
for this position is to "oversee installation of electrical systems and supply of electricity to porches, 
2 AACRAO is a nonprofit professional association of more than 11,000 higher education admissions and registration 
professionals who represent more than 2,600 institutions in over 40 countries. See http://www.aacrao.org/who-we-are. 
4 
fences, and decks for residential and commercial structures." The Director noted in the RFE that the 
letter did not establish that the Petitioner's work for ______ would reach beyond the 
company or its customers. 
In response to the RFE the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
stating that the Petitioner began his employment with that company in April 2023 and has worked on 
two projects. The letter does not identify the Petitioner's job title or job duties. Although the record 
includes a presentation summarizing two projects at ______________ this 
presentation was prepared by the Petitioner and offers little probative value without independent, 
objective supporting evidence. The record does not include a description of future projects or any 
information about ______________ or its business activity. The Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that his employment would sufficiently extend beyond his employer or its customers 
to impact the industry or field more broadly. 
In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that 
"[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." In his personal statement, the Petitioner asserts that his 
proposed endeavor will have a broad impact on societal welfare by improving the energy sector and 
infrastructure, as well as developing clean energy. However, the Petitioner has not supported these 
assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence. The Petitioner's statements are not specific 
or detailed enough for us to assess the potential prospective impact of it in the abstract, without 
considering the specific ways in which the Petitioner intends to implement this goal. The record does 
not include information about the Petitioner's employer or future projects to support his assertions. 
The Petitioner does not explain how his employment with one company will have broader implications 
beyond the company's clients, such as substantial positive economic effects, broad enhancements to 
societal welfare, or contributions to the advancement of a valuable technology. 
The Petitioner submits articles and industry reports about the field of engineering, as well as an 
Executive Order demonstrating that science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) is a 
national initiative. 3 One article, titled "Power Systems Engineering - A Career for the Future," 
discusses the types of career opportunities in the field and the job outlook. However, this article is 
dated 2014, nearly 10 years ago, and does not provide a current review of the industry or indicate a 
specific geographic location. A printout of a website for East Coast Power Systems discusses the 
"impact of electrical power systems on modem society," but includes no author or date. The Petitioner 
does not explain the relevance of this information to his proposed endeavor. A printout of a 
presentation given by Mr. Charles M. Vest from the National Academy of Engineering discusses a 
need for more engineers in the United States. However, the presentation is dated 2011 and is not 
specific to the Petitioner's field of endeavor in electrical engineering or power systems. 
When determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Much of the 
Petitioner's evidence relates to the engineering industry generally, rather than his specific proposed 
endeavor. Although we agree that STEM is important and may be the subject of national initiatives, 
3 While we discuss a sampling of these articles and rep01is, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
we conclude that this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific 
proposed endeavor. As noted above, the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
has substantial merit, and we agree. However, the question we are examining here is national 
importance. Even considering the articles and reports, collectively and in the totality of circumstances, 
the record contains insufficient information or evidence regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
to show broad potential implications demonstrating national importance. 
The Petitioner also references an expert opinion prepared by Dr. _____ of _ 
I I We acknowledge that the expert opinion includes an analysis of the national importance 
of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In his analysis Dr. !generally describes the Petitioner's 
experience and states that the Petitioner's "work as an electrical engineer has national importance, 
shaping a sustainable and efficient energy landscape domestically and internationally." However, Dr. 
I I does not discuss the details of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, including how his 
employment with a single business in the United States will have an international impact. As a matter 
of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter ofCaron 
Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less 
weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. 
Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's 
eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence 
of eligibility. Id. 
Here, the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details 
of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance. His opinion 
is general in nature, emphasizing the Petitioner's qualifications and concluding that energy 
sustainability and efficiency is of national importance. "In determining national importance, the 
officer's analysis should focus on what the beneficiary will be doing rather than the specific 
occupational classification." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual (emphasis added). Dr. I ldoes not provide a substantive analysis of the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor or suggest that the Petitioner's skills differ from or improve upon those 
already available and in use in the United States. 
The Petitioner claims that the denial is deficient because the Director did not consider the entirety of 
the evidence in the record. While we agree that an adjudicator should consider the relevant evidence 
in the record, the Petitioner does not sufficiently support his claim that there was relevant evidence 
that the Director did not consider. The Petitioner does not cite to or describe which specific evidence 
was not given consideration. We note that the decision discusses each of the claimed pieces of 
evidence the Petitioner lists in his brief. Nevertheless, we address them again herein. 
The Petitioner continues to rely upon the asserted merits of the services he will provide, his personal 
and professional qualities and achievements, and the general importance of energy and power systems. 
However, as set forth above, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the proposed endeavor's 
national importance. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further 
6 
discussion of the balancing factors under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful 
purpose. As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining 
Dhanasar prong.4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that he possesses an advanced degree 
as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) and this portion of the Director's decision is withdrawn. 
However, as the Petitioner has not met all ofthe requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 Even ifwe had addressed the remaining issues, we still would have dismissed this appeal. As noted above. the Director 
concluded that, although the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not establish its national 
importance, or 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. On appeal, the Petitioner references the same supp01ting evidence submitted with the original 
petition and RFE response. The Director fully addressed the previously submitted evidence and explained how it was 
deficient in establishing that the Petitioner met the first and third Dhanasar factors and would be eligible for a national 
interest waiver. The Petitioner's assertions on appeal do not establish that he meets all of the three Dhanasar prongs. 
7