dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 14515160 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 21, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a senior electrical engineer, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). After a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 
classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, grant 
a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national 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. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish thatthe proposed endeavor was of substantial merit or national importance, thatthe Petitioner 
is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that a waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
the Director erred in denying the petition. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 l&N Dec. 799, 
806 (AAO 2012). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
{A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interest waiver .... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pe1iinent 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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016).1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national 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 ofa labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
2 See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir.2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a national interest wa iverto bed iscretionary in nature). 
2 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offerorforthe petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate 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. 3 
11. ANALYSIS 
The record indicates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree.4 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver under the analytical frameworksetforth in Dhanasar. 
From the record, we understand that the Petitioner currently works as a senior electrical engineer in 
the research and development department of a device company. In her position, she conducts 
scientific research in the areas of'--------------~---..-----' and analog 
inte rated circuit design. Among her accomplishments, she designed to be used in 
,...!::::::==---- ..... devices as well as contributed to the invention of 
......,__.....,. based smart systems for use inl I accessories. '----------~ 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to contribute to the advancement of practical applications of 
I !technology for thd I device industry. The Petitioner asserted that the endeavor 
has substantial merit due to the potential broader applications of the research. However, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner submitted insufficient evidence to establish that the proposed endeavor 
has substantial merit and national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner submits various articles 
concerning the potential applications of her research. The potential applications cut across multiple 
industries and include increased security and enhanced communication potential, which suggests that 
research in these areas wou Id, in fact, have substantial merit. Therefore, we withdraw the Director's 
finding concerning substantial merit. Notwithstanding this determination, we agree with the Director 
that the Petitioner has not persuasively established the national importance of the proposed endea var. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), alerting the Petitioner to various evidentiary 
deficiencies and included a specific instruction to submit a detailed description of the proposed 
endeavor along with an explanation as to why it is of national importance. In her RFE response, the 
Petitioner clarified that her proposed endeavor involves continuing to research, design, and develop 
I I enabled systems on behalf of thel I device company where she works. The 
3 See Dhanasar, 261 &N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on thesethreeprongs. 
4 The Beneficiaiyeamed a master's degree in electrical engineering from a U.S. university in 2015. 
3 
CEO of the company stated that he plans to use the Petitioner's expertise "inl I wireless 
communication, electrical hardware designs [] for identification, wireless communication, 
authentication, secure power access, one-time disposable use ofl O I accessories and I I 
risk management[,]" and in other ongoing and future projects involvin~I I systems. 
The Petitioner emphasized that her research advances! 11 I wireless 
communication, and energy harvesting tori !devices, which has broad applications in the 
I lfield. She stated that her endeavor has substantial merit and national importance because 
it aims to advance science, as well as benefit the economy and public welfare through the development 
of advanced I ~evices. Specifically, the Petitioner claims that thec=J systems she designs 
will increase revenue in the United States b sales of her em lo er'd I accessories. 
Her endeavor will also contribute to the because the systems she 
designs will recognize and reject isposable accessories. This will 
have the potential to improve human lives by mitigating thel ~ thatacc11rs 
when single-use ct evices are i m pro pt'ly u se1 mo re th an once, a practice th at can lead tol I I ~ and a malfunctioning of the device. 
The record includes letters of support in which the Petitioner's employer, as well as academics and 
other electronics and electrical engineering practitioners, speakfavorablyabout how the Beneficiaty's 
past research has contributed to the field ofl I communications, and energy harvesting.5 
Although the authors of the numerous letters of recommendation discuss the nature of the work the 
Petitioner has performed in the past, they offer little specific information concerning the Beneficimy's 
prospective future endeavor. 
Many of the letters also contain broad and sweeping claims with little detail or evidence to substantiate 
them. For instance, stated that "[a]ll [the Petitioner's] substantial scientific 
accomplishment to the area of I I communication and I J engineering is 
remarkable." I I neither identifies nor demonstrates an awareness of all of the Petitioner's 
accomplishments in this area and the letter lacks an explanation of why all such accomplishments are 
remarkable. 6 Unsubstantiated general statements such as th is add I ittle evidentiary value to th is matter. 
Another example isl l's statement that the Petitioner" is amonyst the few researchers to 
investigate and demonstrate implementation of al j for energy harvesting of 
.__ ______ __.devices." This claim is not supported by evidence of how many researchers 
investigate in this field overall or why being amongst a few is important or even relevant. 
As with many of the authors, although ~------~stated that the Petitioner has made 
significant contributions to the field, she provided little specific detail to corroborate this claim. 
Althougrl !stated that he relied upon and cited the Petitioner's research as an important 
reference, he does not concretely discuss or specifically explain how her work has contributed to the 
field. Overall, we observe that many authors broadly report the same information about the research 
topics but offer little information about the specific role the Petitioner had in the research or how the 
5 While we may not discuss everypieceofevidence or letter individually, we have carefully reviewed and considered each 
one. 
6 The Petitioner has four published articles. At the time the petition was initially filed, a 2014and a 2016article each had 
one citation. In addition, the Petitioner stated that she contributed to an invention with a pending patent. 
4 
research serves as significant contributions to the field. 7 While research must add information to the 
pool of knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication, this alone is insufficient to 
substantiate a claim of sign if icantcontributions to the field. Simply asserting the claim of contribution 
to the field does not persuasively establish actual contribution. Similarly, Counsel offers details about 
the Petitioner's designs but little information about the Petitioner's specific role in the research and 
development of them. The record contains no evidence that the Petitioner has published any research 
more recently than 2016, two years prior to the filing of the petition. This suggests that since the 
Petitioner ended her role as a graduate research assistant and began work with her current employer, 
she has not published any research findings. This appears important, as it calls into question the 
Petitioner's claims concerning her endeavor's broader impact and national importance. 
In the RFE response, counsel stated that the Petitioner's expertise is an important advancement of 
science and technology, and that her specialization contributes to the field. Here, counsel confuses 
the Petitioner's qualifications with her contributions and the impact of her proposed endeavor. 
Although counsel mentions the Petitioner's expertise, education, and specialization, those 
qualifications relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor 
that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has substantial merit and national importance under 
Dhanasar 's first prong. Moreover, as already indicated by the Director, the unsupported assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. 533,534 n.2 (BIA 1988). 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national impmiance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. In the RFE response 
and on appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes the broad applications of the research to various industries; 
however, broad applications alone do not establish that any benefit or positive impact will accrue in 
such a manner so as to satisfy the national importance element of the first Dhanasar prong. In 
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 Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
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 paiiicular field." Id. Here, the Petitioner relies on the potential broader application as a substitute for 
impact. The Petitioner has not, for instance, offered sufficient information on the positive economic 
impact that th~ I devices will create, nor has she explained how the positive economic impact of 
her endeavor will rise to the level of national importance. Presumably, the Petitioner's employer will sell 
th~._ __ _.~evices containing the Petitioner's technology, which suggests a benefit only to those entities 
that purchase the devices and th~ I with them. If the technology is proprietary, 
as pending patents would suggest, then the Petitioner has not adequately substantiated how the positive 
impact wou Id rise to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently direct connection between her research and the products 
that might be produced or released to the market. For instance, the Petitioner has not offered a 
proposed timeline for when her research will be incorporated into products available on the market, 
7 At the time of the RFE response, the Petitioner's 2016 publication had been cited four times. Accordingly, since the 
in itia If iling, the Petitioner gained three more citations on one publication. 
5 
whether her research is a major or minor feature within the overall product, or how the sale of the 
products will benefit the nation, as opposed to her employer and its customers. By the Petitioner's 
logic, any research in her field, which has the potential to be incorporated into consumer products that 
will eventually benefit the nation at an undefined future time, would qualify under this prong of 
Dhanasar. We disagree. The Petitioner must establish a more direct connection between the proposed 
endeavor and the broader implications of it. The Petitioner has offered little indication of how her 
employer will make the technology widely available to the nation at large, as opposed to only those who 
purchase the devices. Without more specific evidence, we conclude that the record does not demonstrate 
any potential economic benefit to the nation. 
While the Petitioner provides articles on appeal, some of which discuss the issue of .... l ___ _. 
pharmaceuticals an-------------,.-====-----__.devices, we have little 
evidence onwhatconcrete effect, in both economic an ----T"T"' terms, thePetitioner'sresearchwould 
have on this issue. It cannot be ascertained whether t e poss1 e solutions arising from the proposed 
endeavor would rise to the level of national importance. Although a relevant consideration, it does not 
to llow that simply because the Petitioner works for a ldevice company, that contributions made 
specifically to that employer will generate national level impact. As such, counsel's claims of the 
ubiquitous national value and commercial benefit have not been persuasively established. 
In the totality, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her specific endeavor has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. 
Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact attributable to 
her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional ornational economy resulting 
from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, without sufficient documentary evidence of its 
broader impact, the Petitioner's research does not meet the "national importance" element of the first 
prong of the Dhanasar f ramework.8 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated hereligibilityfor a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose.9 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has demonstrated that she qualifies for the EB-2 classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) 
of the Act. However, as the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong set forth in the Dhanasar 
analytical framework, we conclude that the she has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise 
merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
8 Similarly, in Dhanasar, we determined thatthe petition er's teac hing act ivities did no t rise to th e leve l of having national 
importance because they would notimpacthis field more broadly. Id. at 893 . 
9 Beca use th e identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's app eal, we decline to reac h and hereby reserve 
the Petitioner's appellate a rguments rega rding the Beneficiaiy's eligibility und er th e third pron g of Dhanasar . See INS v. 
Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessaiy to the results they reach"); 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). 
6 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 l&N Dec. 799,806 (AAO 2012). Here, that 
burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7