dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20604356 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR . 17, 2022 
Form 1-140, 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 , although the Petitioner 
was an advanced degree professional and had established that he met both the substantial merit portion 
of the first prong and the second prong under the analytical framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), he had not demonstrated that he met both the national importance 
portion of the first prong and the third prong. 1 As a result, the Director determined that the Petitioner 
had not demonstrated that a waiver of the required job offer , and thus of the labor certification, would 
be in the national interest. We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal. The matter is again before 
us on a motion to reopen. On motion , the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence . 
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, 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. See also Poursina v. USCIS , No. 17-
16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (findingUSCIS' decision to grant or deny a national 
interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
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;MatterofChawathe, 25 I&NDec . 369,375 (AAO 
2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. 
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) (NYSDOI). 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to 
reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements 
and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As an initial matter, we note that the review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the prior 
adverse decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). Accordingly, we examine any new facts to the extent 1hat 
they pertain to our prior dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal. 
The Petitioner's stated proposed endeavor is "to continue doing advanced engineering and management 
work in the I At the time of the appeal, the Petitioner had been promoted to the position 
of upstream portfolio global implementation lead by his employer, for whom he has worked in a variety 
of positions, divisions, and locations since 2003. In our prior decision, we discussed the deficiencies in 
the evidence submitted to establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance. 
Regarding 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 1he 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate the national importance of continuing to serve in his role(s) for an employer in the oil and 
gas industry, rather than the national importance of the industry overall. In Dhanasar, we noted that 
"we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]n unde1iakingmay have 
national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a pa1iicular 
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 discussed in our prior decision, we concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would 
primarily impact his employer, rather than the field or industry more broadly. Upon review of 1he 
evidence submitted on motion, including a number of government and/or industry reports, prior work 
product, and copies of two non-precedent decisions to establish the national importance of his 
endeavor, the Petitioner has not overcome this conclusion. 
For example, the submitted decisions were not published as precedents and therefore do not bind 
USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply 
existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable based 
on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. 
Regardless, regarding the first decision, the Petitioner incorrectly asserts that we "have previously 
found that the field ofl I engineering" is of national importance. We did not, however, find 
"the field of I engineering" to have national impmiance, but rather we concluded that the 
petitioner in that matter established that his proposed endeavor as an energy policy researcher had 
national importance. Further, and more importantly, similar to our recent decision in this matter, we 
specifically concluded that the petitioner in that case had not established that his "consulting and project 
management work would impact his field or the U .S.I I industry more broadly, as opposed to 
2 
being limited to his future U.S. employer or the clients he intends to serve." The second decision, a 
dismissal of a third motion, indicated that a White House Fact Sheet and a report from the U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE) "helped show the substantial merit and national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed work under Dhanasar's first prong ." Not only is it clear that these documents 
were not the only basis for our conclusion, but the record does not establish that these two documents, 
or any of the similar reports the Petitioner submitted on motion, sufficiently demonstrate the national 
importance oof the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor (as opposed to the energy sector or the 
industry). While such information may "attest[] to the value of thel I industry" and 
discuss its national security benefits, for example, that is not the issue in this matter. As previously 
stated, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor, not the impact of his employer or the importance of his industry. 
The Petitioner also reiterates his expertise and record of success in previous projects, provides copies 
of prior work product, and relies on his high salary. However, as we explained in our prior decision, 
these are considerations under the second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor 
to the foreign national." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec . at 890 . 
In addition, the Petitioner generally asserts that he "offers original innovations that would contribute to 
the field more broadly," but, as we stated in our prior decision, fails to sufficiently establish, for example, 
that any specific original innovations he has been responsible for have impacted his field of I 
engineering, thel .... industry, or the energy sector at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
The record establishes that the Petitioner is a well-respected, experienced, and valuable employee and 
that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, the Petitioner's motion does not include 
documentary evidence of new facts that overcomes the grounds underlying our previous decision and that 
renders him eligible under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our previous decision that would warrant 
reopening of the proceedings, his underlying petition remains denied. The Petitioner has not 
established he is eligible for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3