dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mechanical And Aerospace Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18468283 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP. 28, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a mechanical and aerospace engineer, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement that is attached to this employment-based, "EB-2" immigrant classification. See section 
203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this 
discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national 
interest to do so. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had 
not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in 
the national interest. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions , or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interest waiver. [T]he Attorney General may, when the 
Attorney General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements 
of subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, users may, as a matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance 
the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive 
the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The fust prong, regarding substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor , we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors , or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In performing 
this analysis , users may evaluate factors such as: whether , in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
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) . 
2 
national' s contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national' s contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner earned a Ph.D . and a master's degree in aerospace 
engineering from the.__ ________________ __. in 2015 and 2011, respectively. 
The record also indicates that the Petitioner attained two foreign specialized engineering degrees prior 
to completing his graduate work in the United States. Therefore, the record demonstrates 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 a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
Immediately prior to filing, the Petitioner was em lo ed as a senior en ineer fotl._ ____ _,I and in 
this role he performed aerod namics and engineering services 
as a contractor fo .__ ___________ _, in.__ __ _. Florida. He indicates that he intends 
to continue his work in the field of mechanical and aeros ineering in the United States with a 
specific focus irC7, which he explains is a branch o ........ __ ....... __ ..., hat uses numerical analysis 
and data structures to analyze and solve problems that involv_._ ___ __. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The record indicates that the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor as a mechanical and aerospace engineer 
specializing inC:Jis to conduct fundamental studies oiC:=Jphysics for special applications, develop 
numerical tools and methods for addressing general and special challenges, conduct root cause analysis 
to identify and resolve aerothermal problems andl I interactions, and design and analyze 
devices and components withe=] before and after experiments. He indicates that his work will provide 
greater information and further an understanding in the field of-c=]~ pro
1
oting multi-disciplinary 
interactions and applications of various methods and technologies based· research. The Petitioner 
explained the manner in which his studies would examine the overlap of various technologies, noting the 
relationship between aircraft wings and I I and the manner in which 
aircraft aerodynamics can lead to the production of aerodynamically fuel efficient automobiles. 
The Petitioner demonstrated that the benefit of his proposed research has broader implications for the 
field, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through scientific journals and 
conferences. The record also contains a letter from an aerospace engineer at NASA attesting to the 
key role of0in the field of space exploration, as well as reports and articles published by various 
government agencies pertaining to plans for ~pplication of0esearch and discussing military 
and commercial benefits associated with L_J engineering . The Director determined that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit and national importance, and we agree with that 
determination. 
2 See Dhanasar , 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. The record includes 
documentation of his curriculum vitae, academic credentials, published work, peer review activity, 
memberships, awards, offers of employment, and evidence of the salary he commanded while 
employed by I I The Petitioner also offered letters of support discussing his graduate 
research and professional accomplishments. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that his education, research experience in aerospace engineering, 
published articles, and recommendation letters from others in the field demonstrate that he is well 
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. For the reasons discussed below, the record supports 
the Director's determination that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well 
positioned to advance his proposed research under Dhanasar 's second prong. 
The Director determined that the numerous letters of reference submitted by the Petitioner did not 
sufficiently illustrate a record of success in his proposed endeavor, noting that they did nT protde 
specific examples or supporting evidence that his work had affected practices in the field of and 
aerospace engineering, or otherwise constituted a record of success in the field. On appeal, the 
Petitioner contends that the Director's conclusion was inappropriate and misguided, and asserts that 
the letters did in fact contain specific examples of the Petitioner's accomplishments and record of 
success in the field. 
The letters submitted in support of the petition discuss the Petitioner's graduate work while at the 
I I as well as his professional accomplishments while working as a contractor for 
Siemens. 3 For example, regarding the Petitioner's Ph.D. work in aerospace eng~in_e_e_ri_n........, ____ ~ 
I I Regents Professor and Associate Chair of the School of En stated 
that he su ervised the Petitioner's work and that his dissertation 
He 
further stated that the Petitioner ultimately "invested himself in allying Aerospace Sciences to the 
benefit ofc=]engineering," and in doing so, he developed numerical models that res ond better to 
the specific conditions of.__ ________ __.operation." While indicated that 
the Petitioner's investigations "made great use of advanced~-,..... he did not provide specific 
examples indicating that this system has been utilized in the fields of aerospace orl l or 
otherwise constitutes a record of success in the field. 
With respect to the Petitioner's work relating to modeling and understanding thec=J in various gas 
turbine diffusers as an intern forl IJ I Principal Research Engineer fo~ I I I stated that he supervised the Petitioner's work for several months in 2013 as 
I I technology lead for aerodynamics. I I stated that the project on which the 
Petitioner worked involved "collecting information on the exhaust diffusers of several models of gas 
turbines, creatingc::J models of thel O I these diffusers, and building understanding of the 
differences in their aerodynamic performance." He noted lhat the qrality of the Petitioner's work on 
this project resulted in a full-time contractor position at where the Petitioner worked to 
improve the aerodynamic efficiency of the gas turbine exhaust diffusers. Although I 
3 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
indicated that the aerodynamic efficiency of the gas turbine diffusers on which the Petitioner worked 
would ultimately play a role in determining the efficiency of natural gas-fired power plants, and that 
the quality of the turbine designs will have a direct effect on the profitability of the respective power 
plants, he did not offer examples of how the Petitioner's gas turbine diffusers had been implemented, 
utilized, or applauded in any such power plants or in the field of aerodynamics. 
In addition,! I a research aerospace engineer with NASA.__ ___________ ____, 
indicated that "NAISA exresses great interest in the endeavor as proposed by the [Petitioner]," noting 
that NASA utilizes or advances in aeronautics for both civilian and military applications. While 
this letter acknowledges the value thatc=]research will have on aerospace applications, there is no 
specific reference or discussion of the Petitioner's personal research or accomplishments in the area 
ofc=]as the pertain to the aerospace indus~The letter did not provide specific examples indicating 
that the Petitioner's research in the field ofl__J has affected the aerospace industry, has served as an 
impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in his field, or otherwise represents a record of 
success or progress rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also submitted an expert opinion letter froml I Director ofl I 
.__ _______ __.at thel I who provided a general synopsis and overview 
of the Petitioner's academic achievements and career accomplishments. I I asserted that 
the Petitioner's education and experience in the industry, coupled with the fact that.CJ specialists 
with his qualifications are rare, will enable him to develop "novel applications of ~to improve 
I I efficiency, develop! I, and reduce the cost ofi I ... " Although 
I I discusses the Petitioner's educational background, publication history, memberships, 
awards, and accomplishments while working as a contractor for I I including the salary he 
earned, he does not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work and research pertaining to 
c=Jhas generated positive interest among relevant rarties, has been utilized in the fields of aerospace 
engineeringJ t, andl _ or otherwise represents a record of success in his 
field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to letters that he asserts were not properly considered by the Director. 
For example, a letter froml I principal engineer and project lead from the I I 
,__.==~department atl ~tated tha~,__ __ ~bontinues to use the Petitioner's novel techniques 
1 to model thd I hot gas exhaust flow path. Regarding his use ofc=] to solve 
the issue, the Petitioner,.....,.,......._"""-' ....... .........,.......,Director improperly disregarded a letter from 
Director of Engini::,t::1::J..ll!L...i;;IJ.L__.--___ ,...._..,"'-LIL.L.>..Jca.u.a:L.1....LL.1..:oft the Petitioner's "solution has 
~b_e_e_n-in_c_o_rp~orated into all new .__ ___ ~designs a..__ ____ _____.to eliminate thel I 
issue." While it appears that the Petitioner's prior research proved beneficial for these companies with 
regard to the specific research projects to which he was assigned, the writers did not provide specific 
examples indicating that the Petitioner's solutions or techniques have affected the aerospace or 
aerodynamics industry, have served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in his 
field, or otherwise represents a record of success or progress rendering him well positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor. 
As it relates to the citation of the Petitioner's work, the Petitioner submitted information from Google 
Scholar indicating that he has published five articles, two of which garnered 10 and 2 citations, 
respectively. The Petitioner does not specify how many citations for each of his two cited articles 
5 
were self-citations by him or his coauthors. Nor does the Petitioner offer comparative statistics 
showing the significance of this level of citation within his field. 
The Petitioner provided an article from the Journal of Informetrics titled "Publication rate expressed 
by age, gender and academic position - A large scale analysis of Norwegian academic staff' as well 
as a 2018 report by the U.S. National Science Board regarding baseline citation rates and percentiles 
by year of publication for various research fields, including "Engineering & Technology" as well as 
publication rates for professors, associate professors, post-doctoral researchers, and Ph.D. students. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that based on the statistics provided in these documents, his publication 
output "scales better" than associate professors and his peers, he does not demonstrate how any of the 
cited material provides comparable citation statistics that can be used as a basis for comparison. Given 
that the article from the Journal of Informetrics investigates "the publication rate of Norwegian 
university researchers" ( emphasis added), it is unclear how this document provides a proper analysis 
of his citation record or otherwise sets forth a comparable basis for comparison. Here, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of 
interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar 's second prong. 
The Petitioner also refers to our non-precedent decisions concerning individuals who were approved for 
a national interest waiver despite having low or insignificant citation statistics with regard to their 
published works. These decisions were not published as precedents and therefore do not bind USCIS 
officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and 
policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the 
record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. Moreover, the Petitioner has 
provided no evidence that the facts in these non-precedent decisions are similar to those in the instant 
petition. 
The record also includes exam les of articles which cited to the Petitioner's work.4 For instance he 
resented an article, titled 
~------------~ (2014 Journal of Physics Con erence Serie 
authors cited to the Petitioner's 2013 a er co-authored b and 
, in which the 
titled 
The Petitioner, however, only submitted page one and page nine of the article; as a 
result, we cannot determine the extent or the manner in which the Petitioner's paper was cited, nor can 
we determine how many other papers or external sources the authors cited, or how the authors 
differentiated the Petitioner's paper from the various other sources they cited. Other articles submitted 
similarly are likewise incomplete or do not distinguish the Petitioner's paper from the various other 
sources cited in the respective articles. 
Additionally, as it relates to the Petitioner's education, while his master's degree and Ph.D. from the 
I land his specialized foreign degrees in engineering render him eligible for the underlying 
EB-2 visa classification, he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are 
sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. In Dhanasar, 
the record established that the petitioner held multiple graduate degrees including "two master of 
science degrees, in mechanical engineering and applied physics, as well as a Ph.D. in engineering." Id. 
4 Although we discuss representative sample articles here, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
at 891. We look to a variety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor and education is merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a 
finding. 
Regarding his peer review activity, the Petitioner provided evidence demonstrating that he reviewed 
technical papers submitted at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) I I 
and the ASME I I conferences. The Petitioner, however, has not offered evidence 
demonstrating that his occasional participation in the widespread peer review process represents a 
record of success in his field or that it is otherwise an indication that he is well positioned to advance 
his research endeavor. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during 
his graduate studies atl I and his profes~ career but he has not shown that this work 
renders him well positioned to advance his proposedl_J research. While we recognize that research 
must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication, 
presentation, funding, or academic credit, not every individual who has performed original research 
will be found to be well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Rather, we examine the factors 
set forth in Dhanasar to determine whether, for instance, the individual's progress towards achieving 
the goals of the proposed research, record of success in similar efforts, or generation of interest among 
relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890. The Petitiorer, lowever, has not sufficiently 
demonstrated that his published and presented work in the area of has served as an impetus for 
progress in the aerospace engineering field or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in 
the aerodynamics industry. Nor does the evidence otherwise show that his work constitutes a record 
of success or progress in advancing research relating tcc=]applications. As the record is insufficient 
to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor, he has 
not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
As explained above, the third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. Here, the Petitioner claims that he is eligible for a waiver due to the impracticality of 
labor certification, his expertise in the field, and the importance of his research. However, as the 
Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor as required 
by the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and 
further discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible 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. 
7