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: 33387017 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a researcher in the field of mechanical engineering, 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, although the record 
established the Petitioner's qualification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 
it did not establish 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 of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (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. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. 
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 a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as described in a statement initially submitted with his petition, 
was "to develop a new, interdisciplinary-based methodological approach to vibrations engineering in 
order to advance designs in aerospace, civil strnctures, and robotics." He explained that this endeavor 
"has applications in the advancement of aerodynamics and control, aerospace, maritime, and industrial 
development and production technologies, and renewable generation, which are formally recognized 
as critical and emerging technologies." In a second statement submitted with the Petitioner's response 
to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner elaborated that he would focus "on the 
development of technologies that are crncial for national security, environmental sustainability, and 
technological innovation" and "explore three primary areas: enhancing unmanned aircraft vehicle 
technology for military applications, advancing the capabilities of creature-like flexible underwater 
mobile robots for national defense and oceanographic research, and pioneering flow-induced vibration 
energy harvesting systems for sustainable energy solutions." 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that although the Petitioner demonstrated that the 
proposed endeavor had substantial merit, he had not established the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor, that he was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and that on balance, 
waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. The Director therefore determined 
that the Petitioner had not shown his eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director abused their discretion in failing to address all 
evidence, citing Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994) in support. However, the court 
in Buletini did not suggest that USCIS abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized 
analysis for each piece of evidence. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, 
and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner 
makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. See 
Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973,976 
(1st Cir.1992); see also Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); 
Casalena v. US. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 ( 4th Cir. 1993). We conclude the record reflects the Director's 
consideration of all evidence in the totality even though the Director did not address each piece of 
evidence individually. 
The Petitioner further argues on appeal the record demonstrates that he satisfies all three prongs of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework as well as his eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. Upon de novo review of the record in its entirety, the Petitioner has not established that he 
is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, as required under the second prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. Accordingly, we conclude that he has not provided adequate reasons 
2 
or evidence on appeal to overcome the Director's determination that he is not eligible for a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Since this basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning his eligibility under 
the first and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See JNSv. 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 ofD-L-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 568, 576-77 n.10 (BIA 
2022) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
The second prong of the Dhanasar framework shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the 
individual. To determine whether they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we 
consider factors including, but not limited to: their 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The record includes the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, academic records, published work, reference 
letters, invitations to present at conferences, information regarding the Petitioner's publication and 
citation record, and excerpts from research citing his work. The Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that 
his education, reference letters, and his significant publication and citation records demonstrate that 
he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
Turning to the factors enumerated in Matter of Dhanasar for evaluating evidence under the second 
prong, we first consider the Petitioner's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related 
or other efforts. We acknowledge that the Petitioner has received the foreign degree equivalent of a 
master's degree in mechanical engineering from I Iand that, at the time the 
petition was filed, the Petitioner was pursuing a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from thel I 
By contrast, the petitioner in Dhanasar 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. at 891. Further, we look to a variety of factors in determining 
whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor, and education is merely 
one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding. 
Reference letters in the record describe the Petitioner's research in the areas identified in his second 
proposed endeavor statement. For example, an associate professor and director of the I I 
_______ __,discusses the Petitioner's work "on path planning and other optimizations for 
diverse robotics systems," and concludes that the Petitioner "successfully developed optimizations for 
the use of robots in many critical contexts," and explains this research project "offers vital 
enhancements to robotics mechanics." Dr. I !explains that through 
his "work on high aspect ratio wings and flow vibrations," the Petitioner has "provided a foundation 
for their application in expanded contexts, including commercial aircrafts." However, beyond these 
broad statements, these letters do not detail how the Petitioner's research has had an impact in the 
field, assisted others in the field, or otherwise reflect a record of success or progress showing that he 
is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
To establish his claimed "exceptional" record of success, the Petitioner provided a Google Scholar 
document demonstrating that he published seven peer-reviewed journal articles and two peer-reviewed 
3 
conference articles, an analysis of the frequency with which these articles had been cited to by 
independent researchers in the field of engineering, and excerpts of the articles themselves. The 
Google Scholar document shows that the Petitioner was first author on three of the seven journal 
articles. The record indicates that he was lead author on one of the two conference articles. The record 
also included a letter from Dr. associate professor at the 
discussing how he and other researchers used one of the Petitioner's 
research articles to achieve their own research goals. However, Dr.I I does not offer information 
to establish that the Petitioner's citations are highly relevant to others in the field of mechanical 
engineering. The analysis of the Petitioner's citations rates discusses their ranking within the overall 
field of engineering, rather than mechanical engineering, the Petitioner's stated field; the Petitioner 
does not offer an analysis to show that the rate at which he has published is high relative to others in 
field of mechanical engineering. While Dr. I I states in his reference letter that the Petitioner's 
work has been featured "in a number of esteemed scientific journals," he also does not address how 
the number of the Petitioner's publications compares to others in the Petitioner's field. Absent 
additional evidence showing that the Petitioner's publication and citation rates are high relative to 
others in his field, this record does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner's record of success as 
claimed on appeal. 
The next factors applicable to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework are a model or plan for 
future activities and any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor. Reference letters in the 
record show that the Petitioner has conducted research relating directly to each of the three research 
projects that he intends to carry out as part of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner also provided a 
letter from Dr. an assistant professor in the mechanical engineering 
department at I I discussing the Petitioner's research into "canonical flow-induced vibration 
problems" as a doctoral student and expressing an intent to hire the Petitioner as a visiting research 
scholar upon his successful completion of the doctoral program, based in part upon this research. The 
record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during his 
graduate studies. It further shows that the Petitioner plans to pursue, and has been offered, 
employment as a visiting research scholar to conduct further research upon completion of his graduate 
work. However, this evidence is not sufficient to show that this work renders him well positioned to 
advance his proposed 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 their 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 
or a record of success in similar efforts supports such a finding. Id. at 890. Here the Petitioner has 
not sufficiently demonstrated that his published and presented work has served as an impetus for 
progress in the field of mechanical engineering or that it has generated substantial positive discourse 
in the mechanical engineering community. Nor does the evidence otherwise show that his work 
constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing research in this field. 
The final factor enumerated in Matter of Dhanasar relates to evidence of interest of potential 
customers, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Here we conclude that the evidence in 
the record does not weigh in favor of demonstrating that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance 
the endeavor. The Petitioner asserts that publishers and editors have shown "considerable interest" in 
4 
as his work because it "been featured in some of the top journals in his field." However, the Petitioner 
does not offer evidence to support this assertion. 
The Petitioner further argues that interest in his proposed endeavor is demonstrated as his research has 
been funded through a grant from the Office of Naval Research (ONR). The Petitioner provided one 
research article indicating that the work had been supported by a grant from ONR' s Young Investigator 
Program. However, the Petitioner was not first author on this article; rather he was one of four 
researchers involved in the research. The Petitioner does not offer additional evidence to establish his 
role in receiving this funding. In Dhanasar, we noted that the petitioner had received "consistent" 
government funding of research projects in which he played a "significant" role, specifically that he 
initiated or was the primary award contact on several funded grant proposals and was the only listed 
researcher on many of the grants. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893, Fn. 11. Evidence in the 
record regarding the Petitioner's funding from a U.S. government agency does not establish consistent 
government fonding or a significant role in obtaining such fonding similar to the petitioner's role in 
Dhanasar. 
Not every individual who has conducted original research and published findings will be found to be 
well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Rather, we must examine the factors set forth in 
Matter of Dhanasar to determine whether, for instance, the individual's education, skills, and record 
of success, their model or plan for future activities, their progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor, and the generation of interest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890. In 
considering the record in totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is well­
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong set forth in the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we find 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. 
5