dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Industrial Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV . 14, 2023 In Re: 28962714 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an industrial engineer, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for 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 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 establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 1, grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• 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. 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. At initial filing, the 
Petitioner provided a professional plan indicating: 
Considering my unique set of skills in the field, my proposed endeavor is to offer my 
vast experience in Industrial Engineering especially in project and people management 
in the beauty industry, such as hair coloring, hair care, makeup, nails, paper, baby care 
and women's care, to explicitly decrease any waste of time, money, materials, energy 
or other assets, simplifying and developing high performance industrial procedures in 
the production of goods ensuring greater profitability for US companies and 
exponential growth for the economy from the USA. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an updated professional 
plan reflecting that she "intend[ ed] to perform as an Industrial Engineer and provide [her] specialized 
services in operational excellence methodologies focusing on simplifying and developing high­
performance industrial procedures in producing goods, to impact companies and industries in the U.S." 
The Petitioner further provided various methodologies, specialized services, and undertakings to 
implement her proposed endeavor. 
The Director determined the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor's substantial merit but not 
its national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she "has provided a complete, specific, 
and clear explanation regarding [her] proposed endeavor." 
At the outset, the Petitioner initially indicated that she intended to offer her industrial engineering 
services in the "beauty industry." However, in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner updated 
professional plan makes no mention of any intent to work within the beauty industry. In fact, the 
updated professional plan does not indicate which area, field, or industry the Petitioner intended to 
offer her services as an industrial engineer. 2 Instead, the updated professional plan makes general and 
broad claims, such as "overall business growth in the United States," "enabling business growth for 
American companies to thrive," and "optimization of the U.S. market." 
Notwithstanding the above, 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 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. Here, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor 
rather than the overall importance of industrial engineers or the beauty industry or any other 
unspecified or related fields or industries. In Dhanasar, we 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. We also 
stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial 
2 In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted "Proof of Services Procurement" evidence consisting of 
messages of employment offers from aerospace and wood and pulp companies, none of which appear to be within the 
beauty industry. 
2 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be 
understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes her "combination of ... academic background and wide professional 
experience," "specialized services," "operational excellence methodologies," "unparalleled 
experience," "articulated knowledge," "qualifications and experience," "expertise," and "high level of 
skill." However, the Petitioner's skills, experience, and abilities relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has national 
importance under Dhanasar's first prong. Similarly, the Petitioner claims her submission of 
recommendation letters "highlight the broader implications of [her] work." Again, the letters discuss 
the Petitioner's prior work and accomplishments and relate to the second prong rather than the first 
prong. 
Moreover, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her specific, proposed 
endeavor of providing her industrial engineering services for a particular company largely influences 
the field and rises to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. Although the Petitioner makes general claims, such as "the 
proposed endeavor will contribute significantly to the development and implementation of efficient 
and effective manufacturing processes" and the "proposed endeavor ... has the potential to broadly 
enhance societal welfare and culture enrichment," the Petitioner did not show or provide evidence to 
support her assertions establishing how her specific employment services stand to sufficiently extend 
beyond her prospective employer, to impact the beauty industry or any other industries or fields or the 
U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not show how her employment or industrial engineering services would 
have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. While the Petitioner continues to make general claims regarding the "undeniable 
correlation between the economy and the population's welfare," the Petitioner did not sufficiently 
explain or demonstrate how her particular proposed endeavor would have any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation. Here, the Petitioner argues about the broad topic of the "expansion of 
manufacturing" rather than detailing how her proposed endeavor would have specific economic 
results. The record does not reflect any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting 
from her services or employment would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
3 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of her qualification under the second and third 
prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 3 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits 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. 
3 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 unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
4