dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Industrial And Manufacturing Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 20, 2025 In Re: 34693969 
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 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 the record did not 
establish 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 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 Christa'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 they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 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. Our precedent decision in 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 (USCIS) may, as 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 Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional but did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under any 
of the three Dhanasar prongs. In particular, the Director concluded that, while the Petitioner 
demonstrated his proposed endeavor had substantial merit, it did not have national importance under 
the first prong. 
Based on our de novo review of the record, we conclude the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated either the substantial merit or the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
Specifically, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient or consistent evidence regarding 
the substantive nature of his endeavor, such that he can establish he meets the first prong. While we 
may not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
In his initial filing, the Petitioner submitted a business plan and stated that his proposed endeavor is 
"to serve as an industrial-organizational technical consultant supporting U.S. organizations in the 
industrial and manufacturing space through ___________ Specifically, his 
company would offer consulting services for manufacturing process innovations, equipment 
reliability, workplace health and safety management, reliability improvement and sustainability, and 
building asset management. He also planned to train individuals, whose services he would later 
outsource to companies, and work with corporate clients to help train their workforce. 
The Petitioner described his consultancy services as centering around four pillars: 
(1) manufacturing/industrial equipment and critical infrastructure reliability and maintenance 
engineering consultancy; (2) industrial robotics and autonomous systems designs, deployment, 
reliability, and functional safety consultancy; (3) consultancy services in industrial safety regulatory 
and legal framework; and ( 4) sourcing, trammg, deployment, and management of 
manufacturing/industrial leadership and STEM talent skill outsourcing services. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) finding there was insufficient information to 
determine whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit or national importance. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner advanced two new pillars to describe his endeavor, stating that 
his company would: (1) develop and implement industrial and advanced manufacturing optimization 
technologies through I AI Driven Metaverse; and (2) grow the industrial and advanced 
manufacturing workforce through I ICareer Technical Training 
Education. 2 
2 While the Petitioner contends his RFE response clarified the "how" of his endeavor after having explained the "why" in 
terms of the services he will offer at the time of filing, we observe multiple material changes to the proposed endeavor as 
initially described. 
2 
Specifically, the Petitioner stated hisl IAI Driven Metaverse software would integrate "human 
ingenuity" with emerging technologies such as.artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) 
to create software that could forecast equipment degradation, recommend optimal maintenance 
schedules, and prioritize critical assets. His Career Technical 
Training Education software would offer a "comprehensive mixed reality gamified industrial skill 
training, testing, and placement academy tailored for the industrial and advanced manufacturing 
workforce." 
In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the nature of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor is unclear. As we will discuss below, the information he provided in 
his RFE response did not clarify or provide more specificity to his initially described endeavor but, 
rather, expanded the focus and scope of his work altogether. 
Before we drill into the details of those changes, however, we will begin with the fact that that despite 
the Petitioner's supplementation of the record in response to the Director's RFE and then again on 
appeal, the record remains unclear as to whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to provide 
reliability and maintenance engineering consultancy services as an industrial-organizational technical 
consultant, or to develop software applications. The Petitioner's initial filing made no mention and 
contained no information on the development of these software applications, and his RFE Response 
did not further explain his plans to provide consulting services. It is unclear then, how this software 
development work factors into his consulting and training endeavor as initially described. He has not 
sufficiently explained what specific activities he will perform, how that relates to his software 
development, and how much of his time will be devoted to each activity, whether it be consulting, 
developing software, or training. 
In addition to the lack of clarity around the specific nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the 
scope of the Petitioner's software is also vague and ambiguous. For example, the Petitioner describes 
his software as a "novel and proprietary" solution in that it fuses "human ingenuity" with "cutting-edge 
technology," including AI, ML, and mixed reality. However, he provides little detail on what 
specifically his software entails, how he will formulate it, how its design is novel, or how it is different 
from what is already available in the industry. While he describes broad technological concepts and 
general objectives of his software, he does not adequately articulate how he will design his software 
and weave these technologies together to build his "novel" solution to accomplish his stated goals. 
The Petitioner's RFE response also reflects that his software will include an "open source prescriptive 
reliability solutions component that will enable members of the industrial reliability engineering 
community to troubleshoot and repair equipment in 'real-time"' through "comprehensive real-time 
support and knowledge sharing among STEM professionals." But the Petitioner does not sufficiently 
explain, for instance, who, specifically, will comprise this "industrial reliability engineering 
community," how exactly the "real-time support and knowledge sharing" mechanism will work, and 
what quality control measures will be taken. He also does not detail how his knowledge sharing 
component will avoid users' or contributors' disclosure of their employers' confidential, proprietary 
information. Furthermore, if his users' ability to troubleshoot and repair equipment in "real-time" 
depends on knowledge sharing from the community, which is comprised of individuals using the 
software at arbitrary intervals, it is unclear how the knowledge sharing will result in "real-time 
3 
support" that will then reportedly be used to prevent large-scale operational disruptions as claimed. 
Likewise, if the software relies on a community of users for troubleshooting, it is uncertain what the 
Petitioner's consultancy role, if any, would be in that process. 
The record also does not clearly delineate the Petitioner's target clientele and, therefore, who would 
be impacted by his future work. The Petitioner's initial business plan reflected that his company's 
primary targets were e-commerce logistics companies, industrial automation and material handling 
equipment integrators, and manufacturing companies. The Petitioner also stated that he planned to 
provide "specialized technical training services for the workforce" through training and apprenticeship 
programs with community colleges and corporate clients. His focus would be on "creating a 
high-quality STEM and manufacturing workforce trained in providing RME services." 
However, in his RFE response, the Petitioner broadened the scope of his endeavor to include the 
general public through a free, open-source model in his platform, which will be "designed 
for use by just about anyone." He also indicated an intention to target PK-12 students to offer 
"gamified training to cultivate interest in STEM professions." While the focus of his training in the 
initial filing appeared to be "tailored on-the-job technical training" for employees of corporate clients 
and college students interested in industrial technical roles, his RFE response appears to concentrate 
on designing his software "specifically for new entrants in the STEM technical disciplines," as well 
as women, minorities, and disadvantaged groups. This appears to shift and significantly broaden the 
goals described in his initial filing. 
The RFE response's description of the training activities further adds to the lack of clarity. For 
instance, the Petitioner now states his training services would encompass a variety of additional 
activities ranging from educational outreach programs, factory tours, workshops, internships, and 
career fairs, to collaboration with schools for curriculum development and professional development 
for teachers. The Petitioner has not clearly explained who his target customer base would be, including 
whether his endeavor's objectives are to train people with prior technical experience, individuals in 
colleges interested in STEM careers, grade school children, teachers, or others. 
Accordingly, the substantive nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor remains unclear. Without 
more specific information about the Petitioner's future work, including how he plans to implement it 
in the United States, we are unable to evaluate whether his proposed endeavor has substantial merit or 
national importance. Again, in determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest 
waiver, we must rely on the specific proposed endeavor to determine whether it meets the requirements 
under Dhanasar's first prong. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence 
that he qualifies for the benefit sought, and he has not met that burden here. 3 Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 375. 
3 The Petitioner submitted a copy of his employment contract with The terms of his agreement, however, appear 
to raise additional concerns under the first and second Dhanasar prongs. Even putting aside the issues related to the 
endeavor's substantive nature under prong one, there are questions regarding how the Petitioner's development of his 
"novel and propriety" software would be affected by the intellectual property provisions of his employment contract. 
Further, regarding prong two, there are questions regarding how well positioned the Petitioner would be to execute the 
endeavor in light of the non-competition clauses in his contract. These are significant hurdles to approval. However, 
because the petition is not otherwise approvable, we will not address these issues further. That said, the Petitioner should 
be prepared to address these issues, including the observations we have made here, in any future NIW filings. 
4 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally asserts that the Director disregarded the weight of evidence and 
that the record contained sufficient documentation to demonstrate the national importance of his 
endeavor. The Petitioner also alleges, among other things, that the Director's decision contained 
various inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions including, for example, misstatements about whether 
the Petitioner had submitted his company's business-related documentation, whether he had submitted 
evidence of his ability to personally invest $100,000 or otherwise finance his startup company, and 
whether there was an inconsistency in his prospective staffing numbers. 
However, as explained above, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is not sufficiently specific or 
consistent to establish the substantial merit or national importance of his endeavor. Because the 
Petitioner has not clearly defined his proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that he meets the first 
prong or has otherwise established eligibility for a national interest waiver. While we acknowledge 
the Petitioner's arguments and explanations, they do not resolve the inconsistencies, discrepancies, 
and generalities regarding the specific nature and scope of his endeavor as discussed above. 4 
Therefore, they do not resolve our adjudication of the case. 
Because the identified bases for denial are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, further analysis of his 
eligibility under the second and third Dhanasar prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("As a general rule courts and agencies are not required 
to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach."). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Therefore, 
he has not established that he is eligible for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 The record does reflect a certificate of incorporation and federal employer identification number for 
which the Petitioner reports is doing business as __________ However, the Petitioner has not 
provided documentary evidence corroborating his claim to invest $100,000 of his personal funds into his company or 
persuasively explained the discrepancy in his staffing figures. It is incumbent on the Petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho , 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unsupported assertions have no evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish 
a filing party has satisfied their burden of proof. See Matter ofMariscal-Hernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 666, 673 (BIA 2022). 
5