dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7814033 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 17, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an engineering manager, 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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that she is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
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. 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. 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 ofjob 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 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, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, 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. 
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. 
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 offer or for the 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 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 T&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found 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. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a "Senior Quality and Safety Engineer" aJ I 
I P Previously, she was employed as an engineering manager forl l a 
subsidiary of~------------~' from January 2017 until November 2017. 
6 
From 
December 2004 until March 2016, the Petitioner worked as body shop welding engineer, body shop 
superintendent, vehicle operation manufacturing manager, and production manager forl lof 
Venezuela. 
Regarding the Petitioner's claim of eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong, she initially indicated that 
her proposed endeavor involves working "as a production engineer in executive and managerial 
capacities in the field of automobile manufacturing." In response to the Director's request for 
evidence, she stated that she intends to continue working as an engineering manager for companies 
"in the automotive and manufacturing industries that are in need of my specialized knowledge 
regarding manufacturing, and continuous improvement of safety and quality processes in their internal 
operations." The Petitioner farther explained that she seeks "to plan, direct, and coordinate technical 
activities in engineering and manufacturing projects, as well as in safety planning to improve the 
standards, and exceed customer expectations all around the United States." In addition, she contended 
that her proposed undertaking includes "working to develop and improve quality, reduce costs of 
projects, and implement lean, 5S and Kaizen techniques - a system of continual improvement, which 
is a component oflean manufacturing." 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Petitioner presented the official academic records for her Mechanical Engineering degree from Universidad 
.__ _______ -·n 1997 and her Master's degree in Business Administration from the Universidadl I in 
2008. Her evidence also includes an academic credentials evaluation indicating that these Venezuelan degrees are the 
foreign equivalent of a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering and a Master of Business Administration 
degree from an accredited U.S. college or university. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). 
5 The record includes a January 2019 letter froml l Global Quality and Safety Director for I I I stating the Petitioner is employed as i._ts-,-_G_l_o_b-al_Q_u_a_l_it_.y 
Improvement Manager" and that her role is "to support not only our global quality objectives, but global safety as well." 
She also offered documentation of ·ob offers from andl I 
.__ ___________________ ___,,. As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer 
requirement, it is not necessary for her to have a job offer from a specific employer. However, we will consider information 
about her current and prospective positions to illustrate the capacity in which she intends to work in order to determine 
whether her proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
6.__ ___ --,-_...,., supplies promotional products such as badge holders, bags, blankets, drinkware, lighting, pens, 
stationery, and other products. 
3 
The record includes articles and reports relating to the U.S.I !industry, its benefit to our 
nation, and challenges facing this industry. This documentation highlights the industry's scale and its 
positive economic contributions, including long-term sustainable job creation. 7 Additionally, some of 
the articles mention a shortage of qualified workers in the U.S . .__ _________ ..,,..industry. 
The Petitioner also provided articles discussing the U.S. manufacturing industry's need for immigrant 
engineers; the growth of immigrant engineers in our country's workforce; the increasing number of 
foreign-born science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workers in the United States; 
the manufacturing industry's benefit to our nation; and the widening skills gap in U.S. manufacturing. 
Furthermore, she submitted information about college-educated immigrants in the United States, 
women professionals in engineering, the role of engineering in society, and the growing demand for 
vocational skills as baby boomers retire. The record therefore shows that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that the potential 
prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. For the reasons 
discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
In determining national importance, 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 Dhanasar, 26 I&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 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. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. Although the 
Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide valuable engineering management services for 
her employer, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar 
we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national 
importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, we find the record 
does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her 
employer and its operations to impact the field of production engineering or the U.S. manufacturing 
industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
7 For examrk a November 2014 Center for I I Research report, entitled "Acci,...u..LJJ..U.~..U..U.....l..Ll..l.4"th of the U.S. 
I JManufacturing Industry at Home, Rather than Abroad," states that "each · ob plant produces 
eleven additional jobs in the U.S. economy." Furthermore, this report indicates tha.__ __ __.investment is "of critical 
economic value not just to the community and state hosting the investment, but to the entire region around the~I --~ 
plant, typically spanning several states as part of the overall supply chain." 
4 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. 8 Without sufficient documentation regarding any projected U.S. economic impact 
or job creation attributable to her specific work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional 
or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's activities would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects," so as to demonstrate their national importance under the first prong of Dhanasar. Id. 
at 890. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of her eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that 
she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8 For instance, with respect to the Petitioner's job offer from~------- the scope of that company'~._ ___ _. 
I h production alone is not sufficient to demonstrate her proposed endeavor's national importance. Rather. we 
must examine the prospective impact of her specific endeavor as a I , I• rather than ~ of that 
plant's entire operations. Here, the Petitioner has not dem n i r economic effects oiL__J factory 
operations a~e impllications of her specific proposed work as'----.....------,....--' Nor has she shown that her proposed 
endeavor fo and its manufacturing projects stands to impact the~--~ industry, her field, or the U.S. economy 
more broadly. T ikewise tbe Pet/tioner has not demonstrated that her proposed undertaking as "S. enior Quality and Safety 
Engineer" for I ! has broader implications for the production engineering field, the U.S. manufacturing 
industry, or our nation's economy. 
5