dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19594924 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 06, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a principal research engineer, seeks second preference immigrant classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, 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). After a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 
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. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying 
classification and that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit. Nevertheless, the Director denied 
the petition, concluding that the evidence did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national 
importance, that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor, or that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer would be in the national interest. Accordingly, the Director determined that the Petitioner 
had not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner reasserts his eligibility, arguing that the Director 
did not properly weigh the evidence and erred in the decision. 
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. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification (emphasis added), 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. 
Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to 
architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the fol lowing relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
2 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the te1m "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). In announcing this new framework, we vacated 
our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 
215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant a national interest 
waiver as matter of discretion. See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th 
Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionaiy in 
nature). As a matter of discretion, the national interest waiver may be granted if the petitioner 
demonstrates: (1) thatthe foreign national' s pro posed 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. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three 
prongs. 
11. ANALYSIS 
A National Importance 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying classification as a professional 
holding an advanced degree. The record reflects that the Petitioner earned a U.S. doctoral degree in 
mechanical engineering in 2008. The remaining issue to be examined is whether the Petitioner qualifies 
for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner stated on his Form ll-140 tlat as a principal resea1h engin
1
eer, he would work on 
"external configuratiln analysis for engines, life analysis fo engine cold section and 
structural analysis for mounting system and lubrication system" (errors in original). In the 
Petitioner's initial cover letter, he stated that lis propred endeavor is "to continue his work on 
conducting external configuration analysis for engines" and that he uses computer-aided 
engineering (CAE) technology to conduct his research. He explained that his "expe1iise with [CAE] 
is valuable for simulating engineering problems for a range of industries" and that" these a lications 
include stress and dynamics analysis on components and assemblies using,__ _____ ~__. 
I I and mechan~ent simulation." The Petitioner also described his current work as engine 
develo ment for thL_J program, which involves replacing oldl lwith next generation 
engines. He stated that this work is ongoing and is a collaboration between! I ,.__ _______ _, 
L...-~~~,.....,.,---___._,an d ,__ ______ __.. Specifically, the Petitioner noted that he "secured a 
position wit L...--,-- .......... '-"-1 ere he works with the structural design team and is responsible for external 
confi uration of,___~engines," which involves conducting! I analysis andD 
.....,._ ____ analysis. The Petitioner provided a letter from another principal research engineer, 
,___ ___ __.tating that in February 2017, the Petitioner accepted a position as principal research 
engineer in the structure design team ofl b a member of a collocated team to develoA I 
engines witrCJI I characterized the role as a research position. 
3 
Aside from this, the Petitioner offered very little additional detail concerning the specifics of his 
proposed endeavor. Instead, he largely provided information concerning his past research and 
achievements For instance the Petitioner stated that he developed a structural analysis technology 
for thel lot a Korean I I vehicle! land that he developed the 
CAE technology for the structural analysis of the engines. He provided several recommendation 
letters in which the authors describe the Petitioner's past work and provide their opinions on the 
national importance of the Petitioner's past achievements. 
Primarily, the Petitioner and the authors of the recommendation letters asserted that the Petitioner's 
work contributes significantly to making vehicles safer and that CAE is valuable and applicable to a 
range of important industries.I I a professor of automotive engineering, wrote in his 
recommendation letter that the value of the Petitioner's research is rooted in its economic benefits and 
relevance to~----~and that the Petitioner's current research "has benefitted and will 
continue to benefit the study and development of new ' Other authors also emphasized the 
importance of the Petitioner's work in vehicle safety, such as~------~ who stated that 
the Petitioner's research is valuable not only for improving vehicle safety but that it also holds massive 
economic value. I I noted that the Petitioner's research has focused onl I engine 
technology tori land that this relates to furthering! I mission and values, which is of 
great importance to the United States. He further stated that the Petitioner's research is valuable to 
the mechanical engineering community and that his CAE technology tori l"effectively 
determines whether a~apable of enduring the various extreme static and dynamic conditions 
that it will undergo durinL__J." 
The Director issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (N0ID) the petition informing the Petitioner that, 
among other shortcomings, the record did not reflect the potential prospective impact that the 
Petitioner's research would have nor did the record sufficiently convey the nature of the Petitioner's 
ongoing work withOAdditionally, the Director noted that the Petitioner had not demonstrated how 
research for a Korean I !vehicle would be nationally important for the United States, how 
the Petitioner's research would be available to the public or the United States, or how his work would 
have direct applicabili{ to U.Sf issues or interests. Finally, considering that the Petitioner proposed 
an endeavor involving engine analysis, the Director informed the Petitioner that he had not 
established the relevance of the articles he submitted about automobile safety. 
In his N0ID response, the Petitioner asserted that the proposed endeavor of using CAE techniques for 
multiple applicarlions
1
, including~ngines, isof national importance. He explained tha~ I 
collaborates wit to develorr=::==]en inesforwhich his CAE techniques are needed in order to 
perform tha I an analysis. The Petitioner asserted thatDengines 
power numerousLJ including U.S. and that the widespread use otDengines 
means that a collaboration withl I is important to the national interests of the United States. 
He further clarified that his research involving CAE andc=J have applications in a wide range of 
industries, including commercial and military vehicles, I I engines, and 
nuclear reactors and structures, and a broad spectrum of other mechanical components and structures. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner asserted that the engineering techniques themselves are the subject of the 
proposed endeavor, rather than the specific industries or applications to which they are applied. In 
addressing the Director's concerns over the connection between the Petitioner's background in 
4 
automobile safety and his proposed endeavor of analyzing! I engines, the Petitioner explained 
that automotive safety is connected b I safety and nuclear power structure safety due to the 
underlying applicability of CAE and Furthermore, the Petitioner argued that the importance of 
safety in these industries confirms the nati~nal imprtance of the proposed endeavor. In support, the 
Petitioner provided statistics and articles o crashes and fatalities. 
In addition, the NOi D response included a personal statement indicating that the Petitioner accepted a 
new position atthel I and thaQ is a subsidiary of I I 
the Petitioner's collocated employer at the time of filing. He emphasized that he would continue his 
proposed endeavor of external configuration analysis forl I engines but will simultaneously 
extend himself into a wider area of application, which includes seismic and dynamic analysis of 
nuclear reactors and structures. The Petitioner provided a letter from a mechanical analysis manager, 
I cjnfirming that the Petitioner had been hired as a lead seismic and dynamic analysis 
engineer at~. Notabl{" this letter does not appear on official company letterhead, but rather 
features a photocopy of the Is business card appearing after his signature. Moreover, the 
letter does not include the Petitioner's start date in the new position or indicate that the position is a 
research role. Rather, the language of the letter appears to suggest that the Petitioner's research is 
ancillary to his seismic and dynamic analysis engineer work. I I stated that the Petitioner 
will still remain active in research by publishing techlnical palpers and presenting at cont erences, but 
he did not state whether such research would involve engines. Neither the Petitioner norD 
c==:J identified how much time the Petitioner would spend~ternal configuration analysis for 
L__Jengines versus his new duties of applying CAE and L_J methodologies to the structural 
components of nuclear plants. In addition I lstated that the Petitioner mentors and coaches 
lesser experienced engineers on the team but did not identify how much time the Petitioner would 
allocate to these duties. Accordingly, the proposed endeavor as described in the NOID includes using 
CAE andc=}orexternal configurationanalysisfo~.___ _ _.~ngines; usingCAEandc=]forseismic 
and dynamic analysis of nuclear structures; publishing technical papers and presenting at conferences; 
and coaching and mentoring employees. 
In his NOi D response, the Petitioner preemptively argued against an improper focus on the Petitioner's 
change in employment rather than focusing on the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner is correct that 
under the Dhanasar framework, a petitioner's proposed endeavor must be of national imp01iance. 
Neve1iheless, a petitioner's employment is a relevant consideration as it necessarily informs what kind 
of prospective impact the proposed endeavor may have, which correspondingly informs whether the 
endeavor has national importance. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of 
the proposed endeavor, which informs a determination of its national importance. Id. at 889. To 
illustrate by example, the impact of researching while employed in a full-time academic research 
position differs from the impact of research performed while employed for a private sector company 
who seeks to patent a particular product. Therefore, while we acknowledge that the Petitioner's 
employment may change, it nevertheless remains the Petitioner's burden to establish the broader 
implications of his proposed endeavor research and how the endeavor is nationally important. 
The Director ultimately determined that the Petitioner did not overcome the evidentiary deficiencies 
described in the NOID. For instance, the Director noted that the evidence did not establish which 
engines the Petitioner would be assigned to or whether the U.S. government had interest in, purchased, 
or contracted witH lotQto produce such engines. Among other reasons that the Petitioner 
5 
had not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Director noted that the 
Petitioner had not sufficiently explained how any of his research would be accessible to the public or 
the United States. The Director alsp...n.o:te.d._:hat the Petitioner had not established how his research and 
publications resulted in increasedL__J safety in the United States. In addition, the Director 
acknowledged the Petitioner's new rositiol and concluded that the Petitioner shifted the focus of his 
proposed endeavor from analyzing engines to the seismic and dynamic analysis of nuclear 
reactors and structures. Furthermore, the Director concluded that the Petitioner's new endeavor of 
performing structural analysis on nuclear reactors and structures arose after the initial filing of the 
petition and therefore could not establish his eligibility at the time off iling. Finally, the Directornoted 
that the Petitioner had not corroborated his assertion that CAE andc=J are interd iscip I inary in nature, 
nor had he established how using such research methods are nationally important. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director misunderstood the proposed endeavor and ignored 
his evidence and explanations. He reasserts that although the applications of his research may change, 
the CAE ance=J methods and skills applied remain the same. In our de nova review of the record, 
we conclude that the Petitioner materially changed his proposed endeavor. In the initial filing, the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor focused on researching ony pee re areal lengines, and th at to 
perform this research, the Petitioner would apply CAE and technologies. At the time of filing, 
he asserted that he occupied a position with here he worked with the structural design team 
and was responsible for external configuration o c_____.----,engines. In response to the NOID, the 
Petitioner accepted a new job with a separate branch of a position which he did not occupy at the 
time of filing. His new role involves applying CAE andc=] to analyze nuclear reactors and 
structures, while also me7oring a
1
d coaching other engineers. In addition, the Petitioner changed his 
research focus away from engines to the use of CAE andc=] itself, regardless of the area of 
application. This represents a shift away from the original subject of the proposed endeavor! I 
engine analysis) to the means by which such analysis may be conducted. 
Although the Petitioner attempted to tie the work he proposed lin hisl initial filing to that which he 
described in the NOID through the underl~ing ur of CAE and he has not ~sted that the 
subject of his research focus will be CAE o itself or that the use of CAE andl_J is nationally 
important. Here, the Petitioner incorrectly assumes that if the method and means of research remain 
the same that the subject of the research may vary. However, as the prospective impact of the work 
would necessarily vary depending on the subject of the analysis, a change in the subject of the analysis 
materially changes the focus of the proposed endeavor. In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must 
identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Even if 
we were to accept that the Petitioner will perform external configuration analysis tori I engines, 
conduct seismic and dynamic analysis of nuclear structures and reactors, while also publishing 
technical papers and presenting at conferences, as well as coaching and mentoring engineers, it is not 
apparent from the record how he wou Id allocate his time to each of these endeavors such that we can 
make a determination on the overall endeavor's national imp01iance. Therefore, the evidence does 
not establish the specific nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in accordance with Dhanasar. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner has 
yet to identify his specific proposed endeavor and appears to indicate that the subject of his research 
6 
endeavors may change as long as his research methods remain constant. We disagree. As noted by 
the Director, a visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after the 
Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 
17 I&N Dec. 248,249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). 
In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the specific 
proposed endeavor to determine whether (1) it has both substantial merit and national importance and (2) 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar analysis. Because the Petitioner 
has not provided consistent information regarding his proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that he 
meets either the first or second prong or that he has established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
B. Misrepresentation 
The Director's NOID informed the Petitioner that it appeared as though he misrepresented his work 
history and positions. The Petitioner's present Form I-140 and supporting documents, filed in August 
2018, indicate that he has worked asa principal research engineer since 2010. The Director also noted 
that the Petitioner asserted that he would continue his work as a principal research engineer conducting 
external configuration analysis tori I engines, which implied that his prior work leading up to his 
Form 1-140 filing had been as a principal research engineer. 
By contrast, the Director noted that during the same period of time, the Petitioner's prior Form I-129 
and supporting documents, which afforded him L-1A non immigrant status, stated that the Petitioner 
held different managerial positions. Specifically, the Director noted that the Petitioner claimed in his 
L-1A filing that he worked as an engineering manager from 2010 to 2015, as a senior engineering 
manager from 2015 to 2017, and that his requested prospective employment in L-1A status from 2017 
to 2020 would be as a project manager. The Director emphasized thatthe Petitioner'slproject
1
manager 
role in L-1A status did not include conducting external configuration analysis for engines. 
Rather, the duties identified for the project manager position included overseeing and coordinating 
project management communications as well as managing and supervising the work performance of 
staff engineers. 
In his NOi D response, the Petitioner provided several explanations for the discrepant work histories 
identified within the 1-140 and 1-129 petitions, including that the information was not discrepant but 
that the Director misunderstood the information. The Petitioner explained that the Petitioner held the 
position of principal research engineer during the time period in question and that his employer 
"formed a special interdepartmental team in 2017 specifirllyl for the next-generation! I I I engine development program," in collaboration with in the United States. The Petitioner 
assumed the role of project manager in L-1A status in the United States specifically for this project 
but "continued to hold the position of principal research engineer" forl I outside of the United 
States. The Petitioner further stated that because his role as principal research engineer was with his 
employer outside the United States, there was no need to specify this position on the Form 1-129. In 
support of his assertions, the Petitioner submitted j'gani~tional charts for thellteam and a 
letter fro ml ~he Vice President of ngine R&D Center ar===J 
The Director found the Petitioner's NOID response insufficient to overcome the finding of 
misrepresentation. In the decision, the Director acknowledge~ Is explanation of a newly 
7 
formed interdepartmental team in 2017 but afforded the letter little weight as the overall record did 
not support a finding that the Petitioner held a project manager position in the United States while 
simultaneously holding the principal research engineer position abroad. For instance, the Director 
noted that the descriptions of the work performed did not reflect that the Petitioner held both positions 
and the Petitioner's publication and citation history did not support a finding that the Petitioner 
primarily engaged in research during the relevant period. In examining the organizational chart, the 
Director noted that it featured the Petitioner in the role of "tech leader," which did not support a finding 
that he maintained dual roles as principal research engineer and project manager. The Director also 
reiterated the discrepancies in the Petitioner's work history prior to 201 7, for which the Petitioner's 
NOID response did not meaningfully address. Accordingly, the Director found that the Petitioner had 
not overcome the finding of misrepresentation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director incorrectly assumed that the Petitioner could not 
simultaneously hold both a research position and a managerial position and therefore disregarded □ 
c=Js letter explaining these dual roles. He further argues that what the Director "regards as 
discrepancies are conclusory assumptions based solely on 'job titles' without considering the 
accompanying job descriptions and supporting evidence explaining the nature of the Petitioner's 
specific role." The Petitioner further argues that "the evidence shows that the Petitioner in fact held 
concurrent roles of both research engineer and project manager fo~~-----~t In support of 
the Petitioner's arguments on appeal, the Petitioner provides a copy of the Petitioner's prior resume 
and the initial support letter that he submitted with his 1-129 filing, along with articles concerning 
I I anOs collaboration o~ land a copy of an on line guide about the differences 
between Korean corporate job titles and U.S. job titles. 
In our review of the Director's decision, we conclude that the Director did not d isregarrl I f s 
letter and the Petitioner's explanations. Rather, the Director considered them and afforded them little 
weight as the overall record did not support such assertions. The Petitionerrequests that we understand 
that both research and management can be performed at the same time. While we acknowledge that 
this is possible, we agree with the Director that the record does not support a finding that this actually 
occurred, primarily because the job descriptions and other evidence provided by the Petitioner do not 
reflect it. As the Petitioner's resume submitted with his August 2018 1-140 filing indicates that he 
held a principal research position in the United States from February 2017 to the present and the initial 
support letter submitted with his L-lA filing indicates that he proposed to work as a project manager 
from February 2017 to February 2020, the Petitioner's explanation that he did not need to disclose the 
principal research position with I I because it was outside the United States is not credible, or at 
the very least, perpetuates the discrepancy. The evidence provided clearly indicates that the prinlipall 
research engineer position, according to the Petitioner's resume, was in the United States. As 
c=l's letter does not identify whether the Petitioner's principal research engineer duties were in the 
United States or abroad, his letter offers little in resolving the discrepancy. While we acknowledge 
the Petitioner's claims that the Director found discrepancies in his work history due to an improper 
focus on the title of the positions rather than the position descriptions, the Petitioner does not offer 
sufficient evidence to explain the discrepancies such that it persuasively resolves them. 
We agree with the Petitioner that the title of a position is not controlling and that the duties performed 
within the position provide the basis for the work history and claimed experience. Nevertheless, the 
Petitioner bears the burden of explaining the positions such that the discrepant job titles may be 
8 
adequately resolved. Here, the Petitioner has not provided consistent and persuasive explanations of 
the positions and the discrepant job titles. For example, if the same title is used for multiple positions, 
the Petitioner must explain and document this such that it can be understood that a title is 
interchangeable. However, the Petitioner has not provided clear explanations in this regard. The 
following table notes some of the position title discrepancies and the sources of that information. As 
explained, the Petitioner has offered insufficient explanations and evidence to resolve these 
d iscrepancies.1 
Position Title Dates Source of Information 
Principal Research Enqineer 2010 to present NIW resume 
Principal Research Engineer and 2010 to unknown end date NIW organizational chart in 
Analysis Enqineer NOID response 
Engineering Manager (Senior 2010 to 2015 L-lA resume 
Research Engineer) 
Principal Research Engineer 2015 to 2017 NIW Form ETA 750 Part B 
Senior Engineering Manager 2015 to 2017 L-lA initial suooort letter 
Principal Research Engineer 2015 to 2019 NIWI I letter in 
with a position of Senior NOID response 
Engineering Manager, which is 
also called Part Leader 
Project Manaqer 2017 to 2020 L-lA initial support letter 
Principal Research Engineer and 2017 to unknown end date NIWI I letter in 
Project Manaqer NOID response 
Tech Leader unknown dates NIW organizational chart In 
NOID response 
Lead Seismic and Dynamic unknown start date until NIWI 1 letter in 
Analysis Enqineer present NOID response 
In our review of the record, we observe the Petitioner's resume provided with his August 2018 NIW 
filing states that he has held a principal research engineer position from 2010 until present, whereas 
the Petitioner's January 2017 L-lA initial support letter states that from 2010 onward, he held a senior 
engineering manager position without interruption. Although the Petitioner attempts to resolve this 
by explaining that he had both managerial and supervisory duties from 2010 to 2015, the descriptions 
in his NIW resume reflect that he supervised only processes, research, and analysis, whereas the 
prospective duties in the L-lA support letter indicate that the Petitioner managed staff engineers. The 
L-lA support letter characterizes the Petitioner's work from 2010 to 2015 as a "senior level of 
managerial duties" and while we acknowledge that some of the listed duties are similar to those listed 
in the Petitioner's N IW resume, many are different. The L-lA filing includes duties involving 
management and oversight, while the duties in the NIW filing are not managerial but involve 
conducting and supervising analysis. Even if we ignore the position titles, the description of the work 
1 If the information appeared in the Form 1-140 National I nterestWaiver petition, we label it "NIW" and if the information 
appeared in Form 1-1291 ntracompanyTransferee Executive or Manager petition, we label it "L-lA." 
9 
does not reflect the same or sufficiently similar duties such that we would conclude that the Petitioner 
had been describing the same position. 
When examining the L-lA support letter and the proposed duties he would have as a project manager 
in L-lA status from 2017 to 2020, we note that these duties markedly differ from the duties for the 
same time period provided in the Petitioner's resume submitted with the N IW filing. Specifically, the 
Petitioner's L-lA support letter characterizes his proposed 2017 to 2020 role as "a key managerial 
position," whereas the Petitioner's NIW resume involves work such as "leading analysis" and 
supervising processes, rather than anything managerial in nature. In addition, the Petitioner's NIW 
employment letter froml !described the Petitioner's role beginning in 2017 as a "research 
position" and does not suggest that he also held a key managerial position at the same time. 
Accordingly, while we acknowledge! ts letter explaining the Petitioner's dual roles, we agree 
with the Director that the record does not support such an explanation. The Petitioner must resolve 
these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of 
Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to 
reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested 
immigration benefit. Id. Simply asserting that the Petitioner held dual roles does not qualify as 
independent and objective evidence. Even if we accepted that the Petitioner occupied dual roles as 
both project manager and principal research engineer,simply encumbering two titles does not establish 
that he actually performed work in both roles. The Petitioner has not provided evidence, for example, 
of his work product in both roles or how he allocated work hours and resources to each role. 
We examined the guide on Korean corporate titles, which provides cultural background but does not 
directly bear upon the issue in this matter, as the Petitioner's specific titles are not mentioned in this 
article. While titles may differ across cultures, represent different roles, or may be used 
interchangeably in different ways, th is generalized guide does not discharge the Petitioner's burden to 
reso Ive the noted discrepancies in a mean ingf u I way. As previously stated, the Petitioner's substantive 
work as well as his position titles are discrepant, and the Petitioner has not resolved this with 
persuasive explanations or sufficient corroborative evidence. 
Based upon the information the Petitioner provided, we conclude that the Petitioner's arguments and 
evidence are insufficient to overcome the Director's concerns of misrepresentation in the Petitioner's 
work history. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information regarding his proposed endeavor, we 
cannot conclude that he meets either the first or second Dhanasar prong or that he has established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. In addition, the Director determined that the Petitioner made 
material misrepresentations relating to his work history, and by filing a petition, the Petitioner sought 
to procure a benefit provided under the Act through willful misrepresentation of a material fact. We 
conclude that the evidence provided in response to the Director's NOID and within the Petitioner's 
appeal has not overcome this finding. The Director's finding of misrepresentation may be considered 
in any future proceeding where admissibility is an issue. The appeal will be dismissed for the above 
stated reasons. 
10 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11