dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 25, 2024 In Re: 34868620 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer and researcher, 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner merited a waiver of the job offer and labor certification requirements for 
EB-2 classification. 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner proposed to continue his research into developing electric motors 
and effective control algorithms to achieve efficiency and improve variable speed drives, robotics, and 
electric vehicle applications through a post-doctoral fellowship at the _______ In 
response to the request for evidence the Petitioner indicated he would seek a research position at a 
prestigious research institution to perform the same research in a different setting. 
The Petitioner initially described his proposed endeavor as follows: 
Specifically, he will develop innovative rotor and stator lamination designs for 
permanent-magnet assisted synchronous reluctance machines (PMASRMs) to enhance 
efficiency and output torque capabilities, employ finite element analysis (FEA) 
software like ANSYS Maxwell and FEMM 4.2 to examine how design variables 
influence motor performance, develop advanced control algorithms to optimize 
dynamic responses across various operational scenarios, create a motor prototype 
utilizing contemporary manufacturing methods, including 3D metal additive printing, 
CNC machining, and laser cutting, and publish original electrical engineering research 
in peer-reviewed journals and conferences. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner states that he seeks to: 
".... advance artificial intelligence integration in advanced motor design and controlling; 
adopt metal additive technology to overcome challenges in rotor and stator lamination 
manufacturing; and working to reduce parasitic capacitance to facilitate the integration 
of high-frequency power drives for motor systems." 
In addition, the Petitioner indicated that his research had the potential to provide far reaching economic 
effects in the realm of electric motor efficiency saving "anywhere from 9% to 23% of the total 
electricity consumption in the United States ... " The Petitioner argues that his combination of 
education, publication and citation record, grant fonding, and record of past success makes him well 
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner also argues that is impractical for him to 
complete labor certification and that it is in the best interest of the United States to waive the job offer 
and labor certification requirements because his proposed endeavor is the subject of multiple national 
initiatives in critical emerging technologies (CET). 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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 
2 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Id. at 889. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit but that he had 
not established that his proposed endeavor would have the economic or industry wide effects necessary 
to rise to the level of national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director did not 
fully consider the evidence provided or properly apply users policy as it relates to national interest 
waivers in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) fields. The Petitioner provided 
government reports, expert opinion letters, industry articles and evidence of a national science 
foundation grant as evidence to support his contention that his research efforts are nationally 
important. 
The record supports the Petitioner's contention that his work on the efficiency of magnetic motors for 
use in electric vehicles could have several positive effects on the economy and the environment. The 
letter from R-M-2, a Professor at the I Iwhere the Petitioner is a doctoral 
candidate engaged in research, states that the Petitioner's contributions to the understanding of 
permanent magnet assisted electric motors used in electric vehicles has the potential to increase 
efficiency and decrease the cost of manufacturing resulting in real economic effects for both 
consumers and manufacturers. The industry articles and research papers submitted by the Petitioner 
in support of the national importance of his proposed endeavor identify several areas of concern in 
relation to the mass adoption of electric vehicles, including the efficiency of electric motors. 
We agree with the Petitioner that the Director did not appear to consider users policy as it relates to 
individuals working in a STEM field with an advanced degree. While this policy does not equate to 
an automatic approval of every STEM related petition, it does provide guidance on the evidentiary 
weight that should be given to individuals working in fields of critical emerging technologies. Here, 
the Petitioner has established that his work on permanent magnet electric motors is related to the 
critical emerging technologies of Advanced Engineering Materials, Advanced Manufacturing, and 
Renewable Energy Generation and Storage. As a result, we give his proposed endeavor to enhance 
magnetic engine efficiency significant evidentiary weight. 
Therefore, the record sufficiently establishes that the proposed endeavor could offer positive economic 
effects and environmental consequences that reach beyond the Petitioner's research to affect the field of 
electrical engineering more broadly, and therefore, the U.S. economy, due to the size and scope of the 
electric vehicle industry and the potential applications of the Petitioner's research across multiple 
disciplines. Given the importance of research into electric motor optimization, and the potentially 
positive environmental and economic effects of the Petitioner's research, we find that the Petitioner's 
proposed work has both substantial merit and national importance. 
B. Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong 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 
2 We use initials to protect the privacy of individuals. 
3 
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. Id. at 890. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established that he was well-positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director applied an incorrect standard 
to the Petitioner's claim, did not give due weight to the submitted evidence, and misconstrued the 
requirements of Dhanasar. The Petitioner argues that his education, skills, knowledge, record of 
success, model for future activities, progress toward achieving his endeavor, and interest from 
potential customers, users and relevant entities establishes that he is well-positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor. As stated above, we review the Petitioner's claim of eligibility de novo. 
The Petitioner has established that he has the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree and is 
currently in a doctoral program in the United States. The Petitioner provides evidence of his past 
research in the field of electrical engineering, copies of his research papers and presentations, copies 
of research articles that cite to his work, a google scholar citation record, letters of support discussing 
his prior research, and evidence related to his academic record. The Petitioner originally claimed that 
he planned to pursue a post-doctoral research fellowship at the I Ito advance his 
proposed endeavor. Following the Director's request for evidence the Petitioner stated that he would 
seek a research position at a prestigious research institute rather than continue his research as a post­
doctoral fellow. While the Petitioner claims he would seek a position with one of several research 
institutes, he has not provided evidence that those organizations are interested in his services as a 
researcher or in his research more generally to the point that they would be willing to fund any of his 
future research activities. This change in the Petitioner's plan for future research activities and the 
lack of evidence that the stated organizations are interested in his research casts doubt on his ability to 
advance his proposed endeavor. 
In our determination that Dhanasar was well-positioned under the second prong, we also weighed "the 
sustained interest of and funding from government entities" for his proposed endeavor. Id. at 893. We 
noted that, in making such a determination, we consider factors including interest of potential 
customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals in the endeavor. Id. at 890. The 
Petitioner cites to grant funding from the National Science Foundation as evidence that he is well­
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. However, this funding is directly tied to work being 
done by a team of researchers at the _______ and would not follow the Petitioner if he 
chose to take a research position for a new organization. Because the Petitioner has stated he intends 
to continue his research elsewhere upon the conclusion of his degree, the evidence of a grant for the 
_______ holds little evidentiary weight. The lack of detail regarding future funding for 
his research after attaining his degree and the lack of specific details of where, when, and how the 
Petitioner intends to take up his new position casts doubt on his ability to advance his proposed 
endeavor. 
The Petitioner also provided multiple letters of support from his peers attesting to the importance of 
his work on electric motor design and his past success in developing a cost-efficient solar controller. 
Specifically, the letters of support highlight the Petitioner's research article 
cited by another research group. However, the majority of the letters focus on 
4 
the Petitioner's work from 2011 when he developed a cost-efficient solar controller rather than 
focusing on his current proposed endeavor in engineering new magnetic motor designs. We 
acknowledge the letters of support and give them due weight regarding the Petitioner's past record of 
success in electrical engineering. The Petitioner claims that his citation record demonstrates an interest 
in his work and a level of success in advancing his proposed endeavor. While we acknowledge that 
the Petitioner has published several articles and made presentations at industry conferences, his 
citation record of four citations for his work on magnetic motors lacks sufficient context to establish 
that his work is well-regarded within his specific area of research. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during 
his graduate studies but he has not shown 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, fonding, 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 Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently demonstrated that his published and presented 
work has served as an impetus for progress in the electrical engineering field or that it has generated 
substantial positive discourse in the electrical engineering community. Nor does the evidence 
otherwise show that his work constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing research relating 
to energy efficiency in electric vehicles robotics, or electric motors generally. 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. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial 
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. Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning 
eligibility under the third prong. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 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). 
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. 
Thus, the appeal will be dismissed 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5