dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 18, 2025 In Re: 36886629 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification for the 
Beneficiary 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. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The matter is now before 
us on appeal pursuant to 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 of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish the beneficiary is an 
advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. 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. Id. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884,889 (AAO 2016), provides 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) may, as a 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Beneficiary is an engineer whose proposed endeavor is to continue working for the Petitioner's 
company designing electric vehicle components. The Director determined that the record established 
the Beneficiary's eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for 
a national interest waiver. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in this finding. 
We conclude the record does not establish the proposed endeavor is of national importance and 
therefore he is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Beneficiary is an engineer in the electric vehicle industry. He submitted evidence of a master's 
degree in electrical and computer engineering from in Michigan. The Director 
concluded that the Beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
and we agree. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
1. Substantial Merit 
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. Id. The Petitioner 
states that the proposed endeavor will have substantial merit in business, science, and technology, 
particularly in the domain of systems engineering for electric vehicles. The record contains industry 
reports and articles on the importance of the electric vehicle industry and U.S. government initiatives 
in support of the industry. We conclude that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
2. National Importance 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor will have a "national impact" and 
that the record reflects this through, 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
(1) precisely defining the proposed endeavor; (2) establishing the impact that endeavor 
will have on [the Petitioner's] products and technologies; (3) documenting the 
significant impact those products and technologies will have on the U.S. automotive 
sector and the development of electric vehicle technologies; and (4) documenting that 
the development and adoption of electric vehicle technologies is a stated policy goal of 
the U.S. government, thereby documenting the importance the Beneficiary's endeavor 
will have to the nation. 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor is, "in the field of advanced system 
architecture design of [electric vehicle] components ... that will allow [the Petitioner] to... expand 
its... offerings.... " The Petitioner highlights a letter in the record written by the Beneficiary's direct 
manager which discusses the Beneficiary's role in the company; leading systems engineering activities 
and developing strategies for verification and validation to meet requirements for test cases and test 
steps. The Petitioner next states that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor allows the Petitioner to 
continue to develop and manufacture its electric vehicle parts. Here, the Petitioner points to a letter in 
the record that states that the Beneficiary's expertise has been critical to his assigned projects. While 
these letters speak to the Beneficiary's position, the projects he has been assigned, and his experience 
and expertise, they do not discuss in detail the specific impact of his proposed endeavor. The record 
lacks specificity as to the impact his proposed endeavor has on his assigned projects. For example, 
one letter states, in part, that the Beneficiary "plays a critical role in [the Petitioner's] efforts to drive 
innovation within the [electric vehicle] industry." The letter explains the Beneficiary's job and that 
his role is critical, but it does not discuss the prospective impact of the Beneficiary's proposed 
endeavor. The letter states his "contributions ... are invaluable" but does not specify the impact of his 
contributions. Therefore, record does not establish the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor. 
In addition, the letters in the record focus mostly on his experience, expertise, and knowledge in the 
field. For example, the letters use language such as, the Beneficiary's "extensive experience ... have 
made him invaluable to our current projects" and that he is a "highly talented engineer" and "his 
expertise has been instrumental." Another letter states the Beneficiary's "critical contributions and 
experience ... have made [the Beneficiary] uniquely qualified." While we acknowledge the 
Beneficiary's experience and expertise as discussed in the record, this does not establish the national 
importance of his work as it does not speak to the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor. While 
past experience can be persuasive for prong two analysis, whether the Beneficiary is well-positioned 
to advance the proposed endeavor, it does not sufficiently establish a claim of national importance. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The Petitioner contends that the Director did not properly weigh the Beneficiary's impact and applies 
"the premise that any national impact attributed to the Beneficiary must be disregarded if that impact 
is also closely related to the Beneficiary's employment or cannot be attributed solely to the 
Beneficiary's exclusive efforts." In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the 
relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession; instead, we focus on "the 
specific endeavor that the [Beneficiary] proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. We therefore "look for 
broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting that "[a]n undertaking may have national 
importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." 
Id. 
3 
The Petitioner states that the evidence in the record establishes that the products and technologies they 
develop have "national and even global implications." The Petitioner mistakenly relies on their own 
prospective impact rather than the impact of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor. We recognize the 
value of the Beneficiary's work within the Petitioner's company; however, working in an important 
field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Although we 
acknowledge that the Beneficiary's role as an engineer and his assigned projects are important to the 
Petitioner's company, the issue here is not the broader implications of the Petitioner's company, but 
rather the potential prospective impact of the Beneficiary's specific proposed endeavor as an engineer 
within their company. The record focuses on the impact the Petitioner has on the electric vehicle 
industry but does not establish an impact directly attributable to the Beneficiary or his specific 
proposed endeavor. The evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Beneficiary as a single 
employee would affect the industry more broadly. 
Lastly, the record includes evidence of various government initiatives in support of the electric vehicle 
industry. We acknowledge the importance of the industry; however, as stated above, 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 [Beneficiary] proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 
I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry to further 
establish the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor. Without sufficient 
documentary evidence of the specific proposed endeavor's broader impact in the industry, the 
Beneficiary's proposed endeavor does not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. 
While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered the 
record in its entirety. As the Beneficiary's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Because the Petitioner is ineligible for a national interest waiver, we need not reach, and therefore 
reserve, remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) 
(holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are 
unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that they 
are eligible for or otherwise merit a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4