dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Industrial Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 20, 2024 In Re: 29667417 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an industrial engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner merited a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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 I&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. 
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). 
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 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 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an industrial engineer focusing in the area of lean production. He earned a master of 
science degree in industrial engineering from I Iin 2017, and has worked as an 
industrial engineer since. As he is eligible for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, the sole issue on appeal is whether he merits, as a matter of discretion, a 
national interest waiver of the classification's job offer requirement. 
In his initial filing, the Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor was to work in the area of lean 
manufacturing or lean production. Although he described his previous employment as a continuous 
improvement engineer, and briefly mentioned a plan to work in the semiconductor industry, he did not 
provide sufficient detail about his proposed endeavor. When responding to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a business plan for ~-----------~ a 
consulting company he planned to found and operate that would provide implementation of smart lean 
material handling systems (SLMHS), offering services including software and technology integration, 
automation, warehouse design, and preventive maintenance. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's initial submission and RFE response, the Director determined that the 
new evidence provided reflected an impermissible material change in the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor, and thus could not be considered. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition 
that has already been filed to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. 
See Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
his business plan and updated statement in the RFE response did not introduce a new endeavor, but 
provided more detail about the endeavor initially described. We agree, since these materials provided 
the necessary details about how the Petitioner would pursue his initially proposed endeavor in the field 
of lean manufacturing and lean production. We will therefore consider the business plan and other 
related evidence submitted in our analysis under the Dhanasar framework. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, concerning the substantial merit and national 
importance of the proposed endeavor, 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. In determining whether the 
proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
1 Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Comis (and Third in an 
unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in 
nature). 
2 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's initial proposed endeavor, employment as a continuous 
improvement engineer in lean manufacturing, was of substantial merit. In support of the Petitioner's 
updated proposed endeavor, he submitted evidence regarding the importance of increased automation 
in the manufacturing industry and the benefits of the lean manufacturing processes that his company 
would offer. This evidence establishes the substantial merit of his endeavor in the fields of business 
and technology. 
Turning to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the Director determined that 
the Petitioner focused on his qualifications and achievements, factors that she noted are considered 
under the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, and not on the potential prospective impact of 
the endeavor. In addition, the Director noted that the Petitioner stressed the importance of the field of 
lean manufacturing rather than that of his specific proposed endeavor, relying on articles about the 
importance of the manufacturing industry in the United States and referring to government reports 
discussing commerce, productivity and transportation. She ultimately concluded that because the 
effect of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would not extend beyond his employer and the clients 
served, it would not have broader implications for the field and is therefore not of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner initially asserts that his proposed endeavor is of national importance due to 
the prospective job creation evidenced in the business plan for I I He cites to Matter ofHo, 
22 I&N Dec. 206, 213 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) for the proposition that a business plan must be 
sufficiently detailed to support the potential for job creation, and asserts that his business plan provides 
the necessary detail to support the credibility of his job creation claims. However, the plan lacks 
details about how many and what type of jobs would be created through his proposed endeavor. On 
page 10 of the plan, the Petitioner lists three job titles and descriptions: chief executive officer (CEO) 
(himself), project manager and engineer, and administrative assistant. The plan later discusses job 
creation on page 23, mentioning job opportunities in software development, technology integration, 
automation, and maintenance services, but this section also doesn't provide an estimate of the number 
of these positions to be created, or describe the duties to be performed. 
Further on, the plan projects the company's salary payments as more than $228,000 after five years of 
operation, but does not indicate the type or number of employees who are earning these salaries, or 
whether the increase in salaries over the five-year period reflects the hiring of additional employees 
or increases to the salaries of existing employees. Due to this lack of detail in the record regarding the 
proposed endeavor's creation of new jobs, including the justification for hiring multiple employees, 
we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it "has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. We also note that the Petitioner does not claim that it will 
employ workers in an economically depressed area, an additional factor for consideration under the 
Dhanasar framework. Id. 
The Petitioner further asserts on appeal that his proposed endeavor as CEO of I l"will 
reinforce domestic manufacturing," "promote economic resilience" and "promote sustainability" by 
mitigating future supply chain disruptions. He previously submitted evidence including a report from 
the National Science and Technology Council titled National Strategy for Advanced Mamifacturing 
dated October 2022, as well as a fact sheet from the Biden administration regarding its "American 
Jobs Plan." Both of these documents highlight the administration's focus on revitalizing the U.S. 
manufacturing industry, including the use of smart manufacturing technology of the kind the Petitioner 
3 
states his company would help to implement. But while this evidence shows that the field of industrial 
engineering in which the Petitioner proposes to engage can contribute to addressing these national 
goals, it does not show that his specific proposed endeavor has the potential for broader implications 
in that field or the manufacturing industry. As noted by the Director, I I will serve an 
inherently limited number of clients, and the Petitioner has not established that his work as its CEO 
stands to have substantial positive economic effects that would extend beyond that client base or would 
otherwise be of national importance. 
After filing his appeal and brief, the Petitioner submitted an additional letter referencing potential 
revisions to the Department of Labor's (DOL) Schedule A regulations to incorporate STEM 
occupations. He points out that he holds a bachelor's and master's degree in STEM fields, and that 
his proposed endeavor would involve working in a STEM field to implement lean manufacturing 
techniques. The Petitioner points out that DOL's request for information notes the discussion about 
labor shortages in STEM fields, and efforts to address the shortage, and asserts that these show the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
We note that this request for information is a preliminary step in any rule-changing process, and the 
fact that DOL is seeking information about the status of labor shortages in STEM fields does not 
materially change whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance. But USCIS 
recognizes the importance of STEM fields, and considers this when evaluating petitions for national 
interest waivers when the petitioner holds an advanced STEM degree, particularly a Doctor of 
Philosophy (Ph.D.), and proposes an endeavor connected to that STEM field. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.5((D)(2), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While many proposed endeavors that aim 
to advance STEM technologies and research may have sufficiently broad potential implications to 
establish their national importance, the burden of proof remains on the petitioner to establish, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that their endeavors are of national importance. Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 375-76. As in the Dhanasar petitioner's proposal to engage in STEM education, a proposed 
endeavor in a STEM field but with limited potential impact in the field are not of national importance. 
Here, although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit in relation to U.S. technology 
and economic interests, he has not demonstrated that acting as the CEO of a firm providing engineering 
services would have sufficient implications in the engineering field or manufacturing industry to be 
nationally important. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he 
satisfies the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is eligible for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, but he has not established his eligibility under the first prong of the Dhansasar 
analytical framework. 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 second and third 
prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
(stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are 
4 
unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 T&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5