dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18966881 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 4, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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 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 asserts that he 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; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 
2010). Upon de nova 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 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 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 Dhanasarstates 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 off er and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national impmiance, 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 
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) (NYSD01). 
2 See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936F.3d 868, 2019 WL4051593 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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 
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 ce1iification. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was a project execution area supervisor a~----------.--~ 
I IIn reaponse to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner indicated that he was 
"recently appointed asl I lead." 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The Director also determined that the Petitioner established that the proposed endeavor met both 
the substantial merit portion of the first prong and the second prong set forth in the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeatedly asserts that his "expertise and impact EXCEEDS that of [Dr.] 
Dhanasar." As an initial clarification, we note that the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in 
previous projects are considerations under the second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." SeeDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
Regarding Dr. Dhanasar's "impact," the Petitioner resubmits evidence regarding Dr. Dhanasar's 
citation record and a list from U.S. News and World Report of the "Best Engineering Schools," noting 
that it does not include Dr. Dhanasar's employing university. Although we listed Dr. Dhanasar's 
'·publications and other published materials that cite his work" among the documents he presented and 
included the name of the university where he intended to continue his research, our determination that 
his proposed endeavor was of national importance was based on the following: 
The petitioner submitted probative expert letters from individuals holding senior positions in 
academia, government, and industry that describe the importance of hypersonic propulsion 
research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests. He also provided media articles and other 
evidence documenting the interest of the House Committee on Armed Services in the 
development of hypersonic technologies and discussing the potential significance of U.S. 
advances in this area of research and development. The letters and the media a1iicles discuss 
efforts and advances that other countries are currently making in the area of hypersonic 
propulsion systems and the strategic importance of U.S. advancement in researching and 
developing these technologies for use in missiles, satellites, and aircraft. 
To determine national importance, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to unde1iake." Id. at 889. We fmiher indicated that: 
3 SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs. 
3 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its 
potential prospective impact. An undertaking may have national importance for example, 
because it has national or even global implications within a particular field , such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. But we do not 
evaluate prospective impact solely in geographic terms. Instead , we look for broader 
implications . Even ventures and undertakings that have as their focus one geographic area of 
the United States may properly be considered to have national importance ... An 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. 
The Petitioner references a number of internal "technical documents" he authored , but fails to establish 
their importance. For example, two of them appear to be updates to leadership on the 1 I 
.__ _____ __,t from May 15, 2020 and April 3, 2020 . The Petitioner also provided emails from 
colleagues around the world who have asked for "advice" and are appreciative of his help. However, 
these items do not establish any specific original innovations he has been respon sible for or that 
proposed improvements , if any, have had an impact on thd I industry or the field of 
engmeenng , whether they have been adopted by others , or have been implemented by other 
compames. 
The Petitioner also provided information regarding the economic impact of his employer and the 
economic benefits of thel ! industry as a whole . The Petitioner makes a number of general 
assertions such as he "is a primary contributor to" his employer's "ability to generate billions in 
economic benefits to the United States by way of job creation , built infrastructure, social 
responsibilit
1
es
21
etc." and "the outcome of his work on .. [his employer's] projects directly impacts 
the nation in revenue, exports, and taxes. " As previously stated , however, we look to evidence 
documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work , not the importance or economic benefits 
of his industry. The Petitioner does not off er sufficient evidence to demon strate that the prosp ective 
impact of his propo sed endeavor rises to the level of national imp ortance. 
Furthermore , the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, 
as opposed to the I las a whole or his employer , has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation . Without 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future 
work , the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the 
Petitioner's projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhana sar. Id. at 890. 
In Dhana sar, 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 fmd 
the record does not show that the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
his employer and its projects to impact the industry more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance . Nor has he shown that the particular work he J roposes to undertake offers 
original innovations that contribute to advancements in thel industry or the engineering 
field, rather than just affecting projects involving his company, or otherwise has broade r implic ations 
4 
for his field . For all these reasons, the Petitioner 's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhana sar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's 
appeal , we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding the remaining issues. 
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 Matt er 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) . 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met therequisitefirstprong of theDhana sar analytical framework, we conclude 
he has not established that he 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. 
5