dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Industrial Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL. 31, 2023 In Re: 26662852 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an industrial engineering expert, 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 immigrant 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 revoked the previously approved petition, 1 concluding 
that the Petitioner did not qualify for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability . The Director also concluded that the 
Petitioner had not established 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 l&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. 
I. LAW 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the 
specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is 
1 The Director determined that the instant visa petition was initially approved in error and issued a notice of intent to revoke 
prior to revocation . 
customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign 
equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise significantly 
above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
In order to qualify as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, the arts, or business, 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). Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself: 
establish eligibility for this classification. If a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits 
determination to decide whether the evidence 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 as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 (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 2, 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 the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Qualification for EB-2 Classification 
The Director determined that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying 
EB-2 classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, or as an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. For reasons discussed below, we 
withdraw the Director's conclusion regarding the Petitioner's qualification for EB-2 classification. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner does not qualify as an advanced degree professional 
because: first, her master's degree in higher education is not related to the field of her proposed 
endeavor, or industrial engineering; and second, the employment letters demonstrated that her five 
years of post-baccalaureate experience was not in the specialty or in the field of industrial engineering. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that her master's degree in higher education is related to the industrial 
engmeenng. 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
The record shows that the Petitioner earned a bachelor's degree in business industrial engineering in 
April 2017 froml ~ and a professional master's degree in higher education 
in April 2019 from the samel ~ The Petitioner included official academic 
transcripts for both degrees and an academic evaluation demonstrating that her bachelor's degree is 
equivalent of a U.S. bachelor of science in industrial engineering and management and her professional 
master's degree is equivalent of a U.S. master of science in education with a focus on higher education. 
The Petitioner's master's degree in higher education meets the definition of "advanced degree" as it 
is "any" foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Therefore, we withdraw the Director's decision in this matter and conclude that the Petitioner has 
established her eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on the 
evidence that she holds the equivalent of a United States baccalaureate degree plus a master's degree. 3 
As the Petitioner has established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced 
degree professional, we need not address her claims of exceptional ability. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
We now tum to the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest waiver under Dhanasar. After 
reviewing the record, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner's endeavor does not 
meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 4 
1. Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner initially stated that her occupation is an 
au pair and did not provide the job title of her 
proposed employment on Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers. Instead, the Petitioner 
submitted a statement describing her proposed employment as follows: 
My goal is work as an industrial engineering expert, my purpose is to lead different areas of 
industrial processes, apply my experience as a jury and an exponent in quality control, 
implementing new technologies and information systems, merging modem business 
management tools. Develop research to improve production processes and thus propose 
solutions to events within the organization and business. 
The Petitioner's initial description of the proposed endeavor does not provide any other details beyond 
her intention to work as an industrial engineering expert with or for unidentified organizations and 
businesses, managing different aspects of industrial processes. The Petitioner also did not submit any 
evidentiary document to support how her proposed endeavor meets the three prongs of Dhanasar. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that she would provide 
business industrial engineering services through her company, I I and submitted her 
"business plan resume." This business plan states that the Petitioner's company is "the first company 
3 As the Petitioner has qualified for the second preference immigrant classification based on her degrees, we need not 
determine whether her five years of post-baccalaureate experience was in the specialty. 
4 The Director also found that the Petitioner did not meet the second or third prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
3 
in Latin America that has unite[ d] the services of industrial engineering and architecture as a single 
whole," thus expanding the proposed endeavor to providing both industrial engineering consultation 
and architecture services "at a global level." 
In response to the Director's notice of intent to revoke (NOIR), the Petitioner submitted another 
revised statement that farther expands the scope of her proposed endeavor and changes the focus of 
her company's services as follows: 
I intend to work in different fields of industrial engineering; engineering is multidisciplinary 
and specializes in knowledge offonctions that are important for the growth of a company, such 
as production, administration, finance, and economics. My focus is productivity. The 
industrial engineer is analyzing how to reduce time, costs, materials and simplify the assembly 
of a part, among other things. For me, it is a pleasure and honor to be able to contribute my 
knowledge to this nation; to be able to bring my company from Panama to the United States, 
and at the same time help other companies to grow and contribute to the economy of the United 
States. 
The Petitioner included a brochure that explains the company's mission to "improve productivity and 
quality of business" by "documenting the processes of the companies and that they can have in their 
hands a manual, guide, magazine or recipe, with the highest standards and quality in the current 
market." As samples of her projects, the Petitioner submitted a recipe booklet with colorful 
illustrations in Spanish and another booklet detailing the entire process of making flour tortillas. 
On appeal, the Petitioner once again changes her proposed endeavor to the following description: 
"[m ]y proposed general effort in the United States is to work in Industrial and Commercial 
Negotiations at a national level, as well as to contribute to improve the productivity of those companies 
that are economically depressed; through my experience as a consultant and governmental contacts 
such as the Chamber of Commerce of Panama." The Petitioner had not discussed working in 
commercial negotiations or working with companies that are economically depressed prior to the 
appeal. 
Based upon the evidence in the record, the Petitioner has not identified a specific or consistent 
proposed endeavor. As described in her initial filing, her proposed endeavor involved working with 
unidentified companies or businesses as an industrial engineering expert. By contrast, her RFE and 
NOIR responses indicated a shift in focus to business ownership. Furthermore, while the RFE 
response stated that her company will provide a combination of industrial engineering and architecture 
services, the NOIR response changed the focus of her company to creating standardized business 
manuals to improve productivity. 
A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition 
conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1998). If significant changes are made to the initial request for approval, the Petitioner must file a 
new petition rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the facts in the record. 
Here, when the Director asked the Petitioner for more details about her proposed endeavor in the RFE 
or NOIR, the Petitioner responded by significantly changing the endeavor. USCIS regulations 
affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the 
4 
petition is filed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of 
future eligibility or after a petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter ofMichelin 
Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248,249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). We will therefore not consider the changes 
made to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in reply to the Director's RFE and NOIR, or the new 
evidence submitted on appeal. 
2. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar' s analytical framework relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. As discussed above, 
the Petitioner's statements on record do not offer a consistent, specific proposed endeavor and contain 
material changes. Therefore, we are unable to properly evaluate her endeavor under the first prong 
and conclude that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the endeavor's substantial merit and national 
importance. 
In determining 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 the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. We also look to evidence documenting the "potential 
prospective impact" of the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner claimed that her endeavor as a business 
industrial engineer expert and consultant encompasses various disciplines in the fields of business, 
engineering, finances, technology and even architecture, and will provide significant economic 
contribution to the United States. But the record does not offer any sufficient, specific information 
and evidence regarding her proposed endeavor or its prospective impact rising to the level of national 
importance. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have 
little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding 
that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
In addition, the Petitioner does not demonstrate how her proposed endeavor will substantially benefit 
the field of industrial engineering, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a ]n undertaking may have national 
importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, 
such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner does not offer any evidence that her skills differ from 
or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States. 
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. However, the Petitioner has not 
established that her endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers 
substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without sufficient information or evidence 
regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her company, the record 
does not show that the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from her endeavor 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. 
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. The Petitioner 
has not provided evidence to support that her work as a business industrial engineering expert working 
5 
for one or more employers would have substantially positive effects or would otherwise have broader 
implications beyond those employers. 
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Petitioner did not establish substantial merit and national 
importance of the proposed endeavor and does not meet the first prong of Dhanasar. Therefore, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding her eligibility under the 
second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that 
the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6