dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Materials Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 28, 2024 In Re: 31651308 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a materials 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 Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but 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 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 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 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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent 
regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 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, 1 grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. at 889. 
The first prong, 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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
See id. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver 
of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer is warranted. 
Initially, the Petitioner generally described the endeavor as a plan "to conduct materials synthesis and 
characterization, electrochemical testing and analysis, and mathematical modeling to develop state­
of-the-art energy devices and new materials for renewable energy conversion in order to address the 
global energy crisis." The Petitioner further stated that her research "is relevant to mitigating 
greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy conversion and generation." The Petitioner 
elaborated that, at the time, she was "most interested in pursuing this position with I I
I I which she describes as "a leading provider of distributed energy solutions." The 
Petitioner summarized her qualifications, prior research she has conducted, and generalized 
information regarding energy consumption and research. The Petitioner also submitted opinion letters 
that reiterate the Petitioner's qualifications, prior research she has conducted, and generalized 
information regarding energy consumption and research. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner reiterated her qualifications, 
prior research she has conducted, and generalized information regarding energy consumption and 
research. She also stated that she "is currently employed as an associate-R&D at 
which she describes as "an independent manufacturer of advanced battery materials using valuable 
elements reclaimed from spent lithium-ion batteries." The Petitioner summarized the benefits of the 
battery material recovery process under development atl I The Petitioner submitted 
an employment confirmation letter from the operations manager atl Ithat indicates 
that, after the Petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, she began 
working in her current position for The Petitioner described her duties as 
"laboratory activities," although the employment confirmation letter elaborates that the Petitioner has 
been responsible for "the analysis and organization of test data, management oflaboratory equipment, 
fulfillment of customer sample requests, and development of hydro and electrochemical methods." 
The Director acknowledged the employment confirmation letter submitted in response to the RFE, 
and the summarizations of the Petitioner's qualifications, prior research she has conducted, and 
2 
generalized information regarding energy consumption and research. However, the Director noted 
that the record does not substantiate the generalizations with "quantitative specifics, supported by 
independent documentation." The Director explained that the record's generalizations, "without more 
does not provide sufficient context regarding whether the endeavor has the potential to create a 
significant impact or have broader implications" beyond those potentially resulting from "any basic 
economic activity." The Director also acknowledged the Petitioner's references to Biden 
Administration statements regarding science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 
fields. However, the Director explained that "the fact that the [P]etitioner's endeavor falls within a 
STEM field does not automatically show eligibility for a national interest waiver. Specifically, the 
STEM endeavor must have both substantial merit and national importance in respect to the first prong 
of Dhanasar." Ultimately, the Director concluded that the record does not establish whether "the 
[P]etitioner' s activities would operate on such a scale as to rise to the level of national importance," 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong. The Director further concluded that the record does not 
establish that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, also required by the first Dhanasar prong. 
As a petitioner is ineligible for a national interest waiver if any of the Dhanasar prongs are not 
satisfied, the Director did not address the second or third Dhanasar prongs. See Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates prior research she has conducted and generalized information 
regarding energy consumption and research. Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that "[t]he United 
States Department of Energy has identified fuel cells as a key technology for reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions and achieving energy security," she references the estimated value of "the fuel cell market 
in North America ... by 2030," environmental goals for the year 2050 and other clean-energy projects, 
and she notes that "research involving advanced engineering materials [is] an area of research 
designated by the National Science and Technology Council ('NSTC') as involving 'critical and 
emerging technologies' and the subject of [the Petitioner's] proposed endeavor." The Petitioner 
asserts on appeal that the generalized information regarding energy consumption and research 
establish her proposed endeavor has national importance. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential 
prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." See id. at 889. Dhanasar provided examples 
of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first prong, having "national or 
even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances" or those with "significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area." Id. at 889-90. 
The generalized information regarding energy consumption and research addresses the importance of 
the industry, field, or profession in which the Petitioner proposes to work; however, as noted, the 
importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work is not the relevant 
question for determining whether the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor the 
Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national importance. See id. Neither the Department of 
Energy's energy security policy, nor the estimated North American fuel cell market in 2030, nor 
environmental goals for the year 2050, nor the NTSC's critical and emerging technologies 
3 
designations, nor any of the other generalized information regarding energy consumption and research 
the Petitioner references discuss the Petitioner, the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake, and 
how the specific endeavor may have the type ofbroader implications indicative of national importance. 
See id. The generalized information does not discuss how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes 
to undertake may have "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances," or "significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area," or any other broader implications that may indicate national 
importance. See id. In turn, the Petitioner's references to prior research she has conducted relate to 
the second Dhanasar prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed 
endeavor-but they do not relate to whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes 
prospectively to undertake may have national importance. See id. at 888-91. 
We note in particular that the employment confirmation letter the Petitioner submitted in response to 
the RFE referenced "fulfilment of customer sample requests." The Petitioner's self-described 
"laboratory activities" appear to benefit whichever company that employs or may employ the 
Petitioner, and the apparent customers of the Petitioner's employer(s). However, the record does not 
establish how "the analysis and organization of test data, management of laboratory equipment, 
fulfillment of customer sample requests, and development of hydro and electrochemical methods," or 
any other "laboratory activities" the Petitioner may perform, may extend beyond her employer( s) and 
the particular customers of the employer(s), to have national or even global implications within the 
field of energy, or any other particular field, "such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances." See id. at 889-90. Even if the record established how 
the particular research to which the Petitioner proposes to contribute may have the type of "national 
or even global implications within a particular field," the record does not clarify the significance of 
the Petitioner's particular "laboratory activities" compared to other workers for the same employer(s) 
who may have greater responsibility. See id. In turn, the record does not establish how the Petitioner, 
as a single researcher working for-presumably-one employer at a time may demonstrate 
"significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area." See id. We acknowledge that a proposed endeavor 
may demonstrate national importance without necessarily establishing substantial positive economic 
effects; however, the record does not otherwise establish how the specific endeavor the Petitioner 
proposes to undertake may have such non-economic national importance. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. 
We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong, 
and whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5