dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 25, 2024 In Re: 33943179 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability, 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 although the Petitioner 
is an advanced degree professional, he did not establish 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 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. Once a 
petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then establish 
eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Id. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&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 a 
matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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 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. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The 
Petitioner filed this petition on July 25, 2023. At the time of filing, the Petitioner was an associate 
professor at and an engineering director for a company inl IEgypt 
where he supervised and conducted consultation jobs in the following areas: firefighting, HV AC, 
piping stress analysis, finite element analysis, vibration analysis and fault diagnosis, and hydraulic 
pipeline design. After analyzing the initial evidence, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), 
noting the deficiencies in the record, to which the Petitioner timely responded. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree based on his doctorate degree in aerospace engineering from 
_________ in Virginia. We agree with the Director's determination. The issue on 
appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a 
labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
Because a petitioner must establish that they meet all three prongs of the Dhanasar framework to 
obtain a national interest waiver, if even one of the prongs is not established, a petitioner is ineligible 
for this waiver. Accordingly, we will analyze the Petitioner's evidence under prong one and, as 
explained below, because he has not established his eligibility under that prong, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar 
framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "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). 
A. Prong One of the Dhanasar Framework 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake and its "potential prospective impact." Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, 
entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. The term "endeavor" is more 
specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation 
normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that 
occupation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
For example, while engineering is an occupation, the explanation of the proposed endeavor should 
describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of engineering in which the person will work, 
rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of an engineer. Id. As such, we will first 
identify the Petitioner's endeavor as shown in the record. Then, we will evaluate the Petitioner's 
evidence in support of the endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. 
2 
Initially, the Petitioner described his proposed endeavor as pursuing a staff research and development 
mechanical engineer position for a company, like I I which manufacturers belt fasteners, belt 
cleaning products, and tools for the mining industry. 2 He explained that he intends to contribute to 
maximizing belt conveyor productivity and setting the highest standards for designs, safety of 
installation, and reliability. In his RFE response, the Petitioner described that his endeavor includes 
continuing research and product development in the fields of material handling and renewable energy. 
In the field of material handling, the Petitioner explained that he intends to design and develop new 
equipment for belts to improve engineering processes and create more efficient machinery, which he 
asserts will extend the life of this equipment and increase profits for the industries that rely on these 
products including mines, assembly factories, food processing factories and airports. In the field of 
renewable energy, the Petitioner asserted he plans "to continue [his] work in designing new novel 
blades for wind turbines and new geometrics for wave chambers used for wave energy extraction." 
The Petitioner also discussed his ongoing research plans, which include continuing the following: l) 
an electric car project (for which he secured $550,000 in funding); and 2) converting a diesel bus to 
electric bus (for which he secured $580,000 in funding). Lastly, he reasserted that he will pursue a 
position as a mechanical engineer, where he will use his "extensive experience with finite element 
modeling, computational fluid dynamics, fluid structure interactions, heat transfer, data acquisition, 
and mathematical optimization," and circulate his work through peer-reviewed publications, and 
patents. 
The purpose of an RFE is to elicit information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought 
hasbeenestablished,atthetimethepetitionisfiled. 8C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), 103.2(b)(8), 103.2(b)(12). 
However, 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). Here, the Petitioner's RFE response included an additional new endeavor related to 
renewable energy, which constitutes a material change in his proposed endeavor. As such, we will 
only consider his original proposed endeavor. 
On the Form I-140, the Petitioner describes his occupation as mechanical engineer, and in his initial 
personal statement, he does not mention any interest in designing, researching, or engaging in work 
related to renewable energy. While we acknowledge that he provided a letter with his initial petition 
from a flight test data science team member at I I in which the writer discussed the 
Petitioner's work in promoting energy independence to mitigate the effects of climate change, the 
letter does not relate to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to work as a mechanical engineer for a 
company that creates products for the materials handling field. As such, this letter is not relevant to 
our analysis. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375 (standing for the proposition that to determine 
whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance standard, we consider the quality, 
relevance, probative value, and credibility of the evidence). Similarly, we acknowledge a letter from 
a professor at I I describing the Petitioner's prior research into the 
aerodynamics of blade technology; however, this letter also does not address the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor to work as a mechanical engineer for a company like I 3 Id. 
!website describes itself as "the global industry leader in belt conveyor solutions." 
3 We note that if the Petitioner wishes for us to consider the evidence submitted to support a proposed endeavor related to 
research into renewable energy and climate change, he must file a new petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b); see also Matter of 
Izummi and Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). 
3 
2 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to work as a 
mechanical engineer, "does not have substantial merit as it will only have one company benefiting 
from [his] endeavor." As the endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education, we will withdraw the 
Director's determination and conclude his endeavor is of substantial merit. However, while the 
Petitioner has established his proposed endeavor has substantial merit, because he has not established 
its national importance, no purpose would be served in remanding the petition for further 
consideration. 
To support the national importance of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner provides the following 
information: publications from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Intergovernmental 
Panel of Climate Change (2012); a letter from a researcher at the a a 
letter from a professor at and a list of publications that have cited the 
Petitioner's research into wind energy and wind turbines. However, because this information relates 
to his post-RFE endeavor, it is not relevant to our analysis of whether his proposed work as a research 
and mechanical engineer is of national importance. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375. As 
such, it will not be considered. 
In the Petitioner's initial statement, he explains that his research will lead to the development of new 
products that will be promoted at the national level through Inationwide business channels 
and outreach. He further explains that because of reputation as a world leader in belt 
conveyor productivity and because its products set the industry's standards for "design, ease of 
installation, and reliability," his work will be of national importance. In the Petitioner's RFE response, 
he describes his research and development of belt splicing technology as critical to the operations of 
the mining, construction, and manufacturing sectors, because his "work will lead to extending the life 
of vital equipment components such as belts and splices [ which are] crucial in those industries, 
reducing time and increasing profits." In addition, he asserts that innovation and development of new 
equipment is significant for U.S. companies to maintain competitiveness in these industries. 
To support these assertions, the Petitioner provides the following documentation: a letter from a 
former colleague explaining the importance of the Petitioner's prior work which "helped develop 
modeling tools for understanding plastic flow in a parison head used in Blow Fill Seal pharmaceutical 
machinery" and "developed the analytical understanding of a problem that was beyond our capabilities 
[and] ... helped solve long standing design problems and led to breakthrough products;" evidence of 
the commercialization of three products that the Petitioner's patented work helped developed; and a 
blog post from a company titled "What is Conveyor Belt Splicing and its Popular Methods." We note 
that although the blog post provides a context for some of his assertions, it does not specifically discuss 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or explain how his endeavor would have broader implications. See 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375. For example, the blog post explains how conveyor belt 
splicing is the process of connecting two ends of a conveyor belt to create a continuous loop, however 
this information does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Id. 
Furthermore, the information related to the commercialization of his prior patented work would be 
relevant to Dhanasar 's second prong, where we consider whether the Petitioner is well positioned to 
advance his endeavor. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
4 
The Petitioner provides a paper from the National Institute of Standards and Technology citing the 
importance of the manufacturing industry because it contributed $2.3 trillion to the United States' 
gross domestic product (GDP) (which is 12% of total GDP). However, merely working in an 
important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor, and the report does not otherwise mention the Petitioner's endeavor or even the role of 
mechanical engineers in the manufacturing industry. Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 375. 
The Petitioner asserts that his research and design work will be spread through "national 
channels," however this statement is too amorphous to establish his burden. Id. First, beyond 
assertions, the Petitioner has not established how improving belt splicing will impact the fields of 
mining, manufacturing, or construction. Id. Second, the record does not establish Flexco' s "national 
channels" or that the Petitioner has an offer of employment at I Id. Lastly, while the evidence 
establishes that his prior research led to commercialized products that are available for sale, the 
Petitioner has not provided sufficient information to understand the economic or technological impact 
of the potential products that will flow from his research on the manufacturing or materials handling 
fields. Id. While we acknowledge and agree with the Petitioner's assertion that innovation and 
development of new equipment is significant for U.S. companies to maintain competitiveness in these 
industries, he has not established that his proposed endeavor will extend the life of vital equipment, or 
increase profits. Id. 
We explained in Dhanasar 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 . . . 
may well be understood to have national importance ." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
Here, the Petitioner has not provided any evidence to support his endeavor would have the substantial 
positive economic effects contemplated in Dhanasar. As such, without more, the Petitioner has not 
established his burden. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375. 
In Dhanasar, we also explained that an undertaking may have national importance because it has 
national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner asserts his prior work as a mechanical engineer for and his future proposed 
endeavor to work for them as a researcher and designer meets this standard. To bolster his claims, the 
Petitioner provides a letter from the director of engineering at ________ attesting to 
his prior work which led to the development of a new product that was "helpful" to the material 
handling industry. The specifics of this product included that "a power driver ... was able to drive 5 
rivets at a time quickly, reliably, and with minimal kickback to the operator." While this letter provides 
helpful details, and we acknowledge that the product may have resulted in some improvements to the 
manufacturing process, it is insufficient to understand the impact of this product on the field. Matter 
ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 375. In order to determine if his proposed endeavor would have a broad 
impact on the field of material handling, we would need to understand the scope of the implementation 
of his proposed work and product development, and this letter does not establish his burden. Id. 
Furthermore, the letter's discussion of the Petitioner's prior work accomplishments is relevant to prong 
two, where we consider whether he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
5 
I 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner's doctorate in aerospace engineering from ____
lin Virginia, is an advanced degree in a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 
(STEM) field, which he stresses is related to an area of critical and emerging technology or other 
STEM area important to U.S. competitiveness, which we must consider as a positive factor under the 
second Dhanasar prong. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov/ 
policy-manual. Similarly, we acknowledge the evidence of the Petitioner's research publications, and 
research citation record; however, these factors are considered under Dhanasar 's second prong, but 
do not establish his proposed endeavor's national importance. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred by evaluating the national importance of his 
"potentia l employment at a private company" rather than his endeavor. However, as noted above, the 
Petitioner's description of his proposedendeavor materially changed from working as a mechanical 
engineer for a company, like to encompass researching and designing products to advance the 
field of renewable energy. As such, the Director correctly analyzed the Petitioner's initial proposed 
endeavor, and we agree with their conclusion that his endeavor will only impact his future employer. 
The Petitioner further contends that because his endeavor includes research, which will be 
disseminated in peer reviewed publications, the national importance of his proposed endeavor goes 
beyond his future employer's company. We acknowledge that dissemination of research can be 
nationally important, however the record is insufficient to establish how the Petitioner's research into 
improving the durability of belts and splices is in the national interest for the above stated reasons. 
We considered the Petitioner's analogy suggesting that his endeavor is akin to a researcher working 
at Pfizer who develops low-cost cancer drugs, or a researcher at Ford who develops a lighter and 
stronger steel. We acknowledge that with sufficient evidence, a petitioner may be able to establish 
that research and development of manufacturing products could be nationally important. Here, 
however, the record lacks sufficient information to establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of 
national importance. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor from his initial filing to his RFE response constituted a material 
change requiring the filing of a new petition. As to his initial proposed endeavor, the Petitioner has 
not established its national importance, and consequently that a waiver of the job offer and labor 
certification process, in the exercise of our discretion, is in the national interest. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6