dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Heavy Equipment Maintenance And Repair

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 17, 2024 In Re: 29277372 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not established eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual 
of exceptional ability and that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part 
adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manu al/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5 . 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit 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, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion 3, 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. 
The Petitioner proposes to work "in the field of maintenance and repair of heavy equipment in the 
United States ... to obtain a greater result and improve the quality of service." 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 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. Although the Director did not make a determination as to whether the Petitioner 
met substantial merit;4 however, we find that the evidence in the record establishes that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did 
not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner contends 
that the Director did not give due regard to the evidence submitted, including articles about the 
importance of automobile technicians, mechanics, and the automotive industry and the shortage of 
automotive technicians. 
Regarding the articles about the importance of automobile technicians, mechanics, and the automotive 
industry, when determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. In Dhanasar, we farther 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. 
3 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
4 The Director also noted that the Petitioner did not respond to her request for evidence (RFE) from December 2022. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asseits that he responded to the RFE in April 2023 and submits a copy of the RFE response. Notably, 
the Petitioner does not provide any proof of delivery to USCTS and there is no record in the file of such RFE response. 
Neve1theless, we have reviewed the entirety of the record, as well as the RFE response submitted on appeal, which includes 
copies of documents previously submitted with the initial petition and find that the Petitioner has not established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
2 
As to the articles about the shortage of automotive technicians, the national shortage of automotive 
technicians is not, in and of itself: sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
endeavor. Further, the Department of Labor directly addresses U.S. worker shortages through the 
labor certification process. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. Here, the Petitioner 
has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his 
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 conclude that the record does not show 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his future customers and 
employer(s) to impact the automotive industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
The Petitioner also did not show that his proposed endeavor 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 attributable to his future work, the record 
does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from his mechanical 
engineer position would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
We also reviewed the Petitioner's letters of recommendation. The authors praise the Petitioner's 
abilities and the personal attributes that make him an asset to the workplace. While they evidence the 
high regard the Petitioner's co-workers have for him and his work, they do not offer persuasive detail 
concerning the impact of his proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond his 
employer and/or customers. As such, the letters are not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility under 
the first prong ofDhanasar. 
Because the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not demonstrated eligibility for 
a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments 
regarding the two remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). We 
also reserve a determination on the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification. 5 
5 The Petitioner submitted evidence stating that he obtained a "qualification degree of mechanical engineer in the specialty I 
/ direction "Service and technical operation of transport and technological machines and equipment"" from 
~--------' However. the Petitioner did not submit a credential evaluation to establish the equivalence of 
this degree to a degree in the United States. A petitioner must submit relevant, probative, and credible evidence to satisfy 
their burden of proof See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. Moreover, although the Petitioner repeated!, 
states that he possesses a degree in mechanical engineering, the letter of recommendation from l~______ _,J 
states that the Petitioner was "majoring in "Service and technical operation of transport and technological machines and 
equipment" (Auto repair)" at~--------~ (emphasis added). The letter makes no mention that the 
Petitioner obtained a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). He 
has not done so here. Umesolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other 
evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
3 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4