dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 21, 2024 In Re: 30538731 
Appeal of Texas 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 as an 
advanced degree professional, 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus that the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 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. 
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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Once a 
petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then establish 
eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest 
waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. at 889. 
The Director summarized the evidence and analyzed why it did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. In so doing, the Director addressed the occupational demand and 
shortage of professionals in the STEM fields, the claimed ripple effects of her endeavor, her current 
role and duties at the reference letters she provided, 
among other topics. We adopt and affirm the Director's decision regarding the Petitioner's eligibility 
under the first Dhanasar prong. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also 
Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming 
the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted 
the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 ( I st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding that 
appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized 
consideration" to the case). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, reasserting her eligibility and contends the Director's 
decision contained errors of fact and law. In support, she relies upon the evidence and arguments 
previously provided and emphasizes that her employment at is critical to the success of numerous 
research projects and educational initiatives, which align with national priorities related to "various 
scientific fields, including clean energy, environmental sustainability, and technology development 
. . . [ and that] I I research often results in commercial ventures, which ... stimulate economic 
growth and job creation. "2 
The Petitioner's endeavor is described in a "Petition Letter," and "Professional Plan," both dated in 
September 2022. 3 The Petitioner explains that her endeavor is to "work in critical positions servicing 
[the energy, manufacturing, technology, oil and gas, and education] industries [as a maintenance/asset 
integrity engineer or consultant]." She describes her expertise in the fields of maintenance 
management, asset integrity, project management, and engineering, and the typical activities 
associated with these positions, and her intention to use her" 15+ years of engineering work experience 
within asset integrity and maintenance management together with [her] academic background in order 
to develop advanced technologies and a unique methodology to be used by multinational corporations, 
government agencies, and institutes of technology to improve and integrate asset integrity analysis, 
equipment reliability, maintenance management systems and compliance activities." As such, the 
Petitioner's evidence does not reflect that her endeavor is to continue in her current role at I 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988) (standing for the 
proposition that any inconsistencies in a petitioner's evidence may lead to reevaluation of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition). We note that even if the Petitioner's 
endeavor were described as continuing to work at in her current role, the nature of her duties is 
too remote from the research and innovation she contends her work advances. See Matter of 
2 We note that the Petitioner's appeal brief refers to her as a "production engineer," whereas the Petitioner's statements 
reflect she is an asset integrity, equipment reliability, and maintenance engineer. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988) (standing for the proposition that any inconsistencies in a petitioner's evidence may lead to reevaluation of 
the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition.) 
3 While our decision may not reference every document the Petitioner submitted, we have reviewed each one. 
2 
I 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 75-76. For example, she has not shown how the actual duties she performs 
at create jobs or promote innovation at a level commensurate with national importance. Id. 
The Petitioner also contends the Director's decision "expressed reservations" regarding the expert 
opinion letter provided by an adjunct professor at ____________ The Director 
analyzed this evidence and correctly assessed its evidentiary weight in regard to the Petitioner's burden 
citing to Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) for the proposition that 
USCIS may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by a petitioner as advisory but, where 
an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required 
to accept or may give less weight to that opinion. Moreover, we agree with the Director's analysis 
that the opinion letter did not provide a meaningful analysis of the "broader implications or the 
potential prospective economic impact" of the proposed endeavor. As such, the Petitioner has not 
shown how the Director's treatment of this opinion is reversible error.4 
As stated, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision regarding the Petitioner's eligibility under the 
first Dhanasar prong. 5 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 In May 2024, our office issued a request for additional evidence and a notice of intent to deny the petition, to which the 
Petitioner timely responded. The Petitioner's response sufficiently addressed our concerns with respect to her receipt of 
an award at as well as the reference letters she submitted. As such, these issues are considered resolved. 
5 Because the identified reason for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve 
remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. 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 unnecessary 
to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative 
issues on appeal where an applicant is othe1wise ineligible). 
3