dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20412830 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 31 , 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree , Exceptional Ability , National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , a mechanical engineer and software programmer , seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and as an individual of 
exceptional ability , as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 
EB-2 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 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 immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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. 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) Nationalinterestwaiver. ... [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. 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pe1iinent 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). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion 2, 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 first prong, 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 ce1iification. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS 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 offerorforthe 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 
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) 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCJS, No. 1 7-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USC IS' decision to grant or 
deny a nationalinterestwaiverto be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 4 Accordingly, the issue to be determined on appeal 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. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner initially provided a statement indicating that he has "two 
research projects" that "are high potential ones, capable of providing cutting edge business and 
engineering solutions to small businesses at very low cost!" As it relates to the first project, the Petitioner 
claimed: 
The name of mv IT research oroiect is called! 
I It is designated for clinic, church, daycare, hotel, etc. 
... I combines ___________ and many other automated 
functions to create communication between business and its customers. The goal is to 
bring services to small businesses at reduced cost! 
Regarding the second project, the Petitioner asserted: 
In su 
The project is a machine. The design aim is to produce a machine 
that requires minimal machining components. The machine is to utilize locally sourced 
materials and will be low in cost to manufacture. The ultimate goal is to produce 
functional machine for local artisans that may not have a thousand dollars to spend on 
similar products out there. 
he rovided two authored research project documents entitled, I I 
and 
describing the backgrounds, methodologies, and objectives of the projects. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner further elaborated: 
I I is a-four-in-one project. It is a research work on typical workflow in any 
customer-facing business scenario where such business offers services such as I 
I I routines. It deals with how a business can manage influx 
3 SeeDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 As the Director concluded thatthePetitionermeets the classificationasa memberoftheprofessions holding an advanced 
degree, a determination regarding his classification as an individual of exceptional ability is moot. 
3 
or surge or traffics with respect to schedules, check-ins, notifications, and responses 
through automation without stressing its limited resources such as materials, equipment, 
and personnel. The project, which began with Microsoft Excel spreadsheet has translated 
into programming through the applications of various APis (Application Programming 
Interfaces . The project is now in testing and development phase. The four platforms in 
are designed for typical clinic, hotel, church, and daycare business processes. 
Small businesses could benefit from I services by taking advantages of its 
modem IT services' offerings to communicate with their customers. It has been on 
continuous publication on the Microsoft Azure cloud platform and is being tested with 
further development by a local user. 
I I is my second research project that deals with a 
machine by the action of al I, propelled by a prime mover. It is 
develo,ed tol I coming out from the sawmills or right off the shelves of the 
I [sic] stores. For the design under consideration,! I I lis used to make all designs calculations and estimates. The design, 
power and machine components capabilities are scalable to lower or higher inches of 
I as needed in production phase. The project concept is uniquely being 
researched to eliminate complexity in a typical I I machine design and 
manufacture with readily available materials, thereby keeping the machine simple in 
design and low in cost. The main objective is to eliminate orreducefoundrytechnologies, 
welding, or any other complex manufacturing methods in producing a I I 
machine. Therefore, more than fifty percent of the body components will be woods 
woven in angle iron bars for strength and stability. 
The Petitioner also submitted a and a list of potential investors for 
The Director determined that the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor's substantial 
merit but not its national importance. On appeal, 5 the Petitioner maintains: 
In specific terms, I have two projects, both aimed at lowering costs to potential users. As 
already mentioned, the second project is still undergoing final design reviews and all 
efforts is concentrated on the first project) for now. This first one is the IT 
project, and this appeal is based on it. The design aim is to reach a particular niche that 
are often neglected in the United States and across the globe-the small businesses! Small 
businesses are jobs creations machines in the United States.I I will be registered 
in Texas in August 2021 when registered, it will produce seIVices at lower costs to small 
businesses. 
5 On appeal thePetitionerprovides two independent a ssessments, a project ed sales forecast, customer support emails. and 
evidence ofanEmployer Identification Numberfo I However, we will not considerthis evidence forthe first 
time on appeal as it was not presented before the Director. See Matter of Soriano, 19 T&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) 
(providing that if"thepetitionerwas put on notice ofthe required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide 
if for the record before the denial, we will not consider evidence submitted on appeal for any purpose" and that "we will 
adjudicate the appeal based on the record ofproceedings"before the Chief); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&NDec. 
533 (BIA 1988). 
4 
For the reasons discussed, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown the 
national importance aspect of his proposed endeavor. On appeal , the Petitioner claims that I 
I I not only agreed to adopt the software for use but have agreed to advance up to $SOOK for 
initial seed investment" and "we have five potential investors on the list already." The Petitioner's ability 
to procure funding for his projects relate to the second prong of the framework , which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. " See Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The issue 
here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under 
Dhanasar's first prong. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's work satisfies the national importance requirement we look to 
evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. The relevant question is not the 
importance of the fields or industries for 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. In Dhanasa r, we noted that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example , 
because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." We also stated 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 , for instance, may well be understood 
to have national importance." Id. at 890. Here, the record does not sufficiently explain or document 
the potential prospective impact of the specific proposed endeavor to support a finding that it has national 
importance. 
Although his documents describe how each project would work , including technologies, costs , and 
marketing strategies , the Petitioner did not demonstrate the impact of either of his projects in the business 
or I or design field. An undertaking may have national importance for example, because it 
has national or even global implications within a particular field , such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 8 89. Here , the 
record does not show any national or worldwide ramifications his projects would have within a field . 
Similarly, while the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to pro vide more effic ient business and 
design or manufacturing services for his client s, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence 
to demon strate that the prospective impact of his propo sed endeavor rises to the level of nation al 
imp ortance. In Dhanasar , we determined that 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. 
In this case , the Petitioner did not show that his proposed endeavor stands to suffi ciently extend beyond 
his potential clients or customer s to impact the various industrie s or the U.S. econom y more broadly 
at a level commensurate with national importance . 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation . The Petitioner did not establish the benefits to a regional or national economy 
resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects " as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition , although the Petitioner claims that 
I I will operate as an IT service that will require team s of emplo yees" and "will naturally 
create jobs and generate revenue ," the Petitioner 's evidence do es not support his assertions , nor did he 
offer evidence indicating that the areas where the projects would be implemented are economically 
5 
depressed, that the projects would result in employing a significant population of workers in the areas, 
or that his endeavors would off er the regions or their populations a substantial economic benefit 
through employment levels or business activity. Accordingly , the Petitioner's proposed works do not 
meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework . 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 6 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of theDhanasar analytical framewotk, we conclude 
that he has not demonstrated that 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. 
6 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429U.S . 24, 25 (1976)(sta ting that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 
issues in the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); seealsoMatterofL-A-C-, 26l&NDec . 516,526 
n.7(BIA2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where anapplicantis otherwise ineligible). 
6