dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 26, 2024 In Re: 34829245 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer/entrepreneur, 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 had proven his eligibility for a national interest waiver. 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 I&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. An 
advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree 
followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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 l&N Dec. at 889, 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; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner demonstrated his eligibility for EB-2 classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. We agree. 2 Concerning the national 
interest waiver, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his proposed 
endeavor was of national importance, that he was well-positioned to advance the endeavor, or that, 
on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification. The Director did not reach the issue of whether the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor is of substantial merit. 
The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, intends to open a "Consulting, Advising, and Solutions 
Company in Automative Mechanical Engineering." He states that he has over 15 years of experience 
in the field including as a railway engineer and supervisor in train operations and as an auditor and 
consultant of the production process. Further, the Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor "is 
based on the Automative Mechanics Market" in the United States and that his endeavor will serve the 
business to business "(B2B) market at a national level." This B2B market includes factories and 
vehicle assemblers, car rental agencies, auto part companies, vehicle dealers, and vehicle insurers. 
With the initial filing, the Petitioner submitted evidence of his education, experience, and of his 
proposed endeavor. Following initial review, the Director issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) 
allowing the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence to attempt to establish eligibility 
for EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver.3 The Petitioner's response to the RFE included 
a cover letter with embedded excerpts of already submitted evidence, an expert opinion letter from Dr. 
I I a business plan, and already submitted evidence. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not met 
the Dhanasar requirements for a waiver of a job offer and labor certification from a U.S. employer. 
Specifically, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor, that the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, 
and that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 The Petitioner submitted educational documents and transcripts showing five years of coursework, and an education 
evaluation stating that the Petitioner's degree is equivalent to a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering. 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted job letters indicating at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience 
in the specialty. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
3 Due to a clerical error. the Director deemed the Petitioner's case abandoned for failure to timely respond to a Request for 
Evidence. The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen and the Director granted it on April 24, 2024. 
2 
offer, and thus of a labor certification. We agree that the Petitioner has not established the national 
importance of the endeavor as required by Dhanasar 's first prong, and reserve on the remaining issues 
as the issue of national importance is determinative on its own. 
A. 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 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. 4 In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he has satisfied all three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 
Regarding national importance, the Petitioner states that his endeavor is of national importance 
because it will maintain U.S. "competitiveness in the global automative market, driving innovation 
and the adoption of cutting-edge technologies," essential for technological and industrial leadership. 
He also asserts his endeavor will help to combat climate change, train a skilled workforce to be 
"prepared to lead technological innovation," and will reduce local unemployment by creating job 
opportunities. He also claims his endeavor will reduce traffic accidents, increase public safety, and 
strengthen the U.S. automative industry. 
After reviewing the totality of the evidence, we conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. 5 We look to the evidence documenting the "potential prospective 
impact" to evaluate whether a petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement. 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. 
Here, we find that the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond his business's clientele to impact vehicle factories and assemblers, car 
rental companies, auto parts companies, dealers, and insurers more broadly at a level commensurate 
with national importance. Further, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his endeavor has a 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects. 
The Petitioner has not shown that his company's prospective business activity, staffing levels, and 
resultant tax revenue are likely to produce substantial economic benefits to the ______ 
I I area of Florida, where he plans to operate from, or in the United States. 
While the evidence illustrates the Petitioner's intention to provide business to business services to the 
automotive mechanics market in the United States, his arguments regarding the broader impacts are 
not sufficiently supported and appear attenuated from his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner contends 
that his proposed endeavor is aligned with U.S. policies regarding critical and emerging technologies 
(CETs), entrepreneurism, STEM, and the mechanical engineering profession in the United States and 
4 The Director did not make a determination regarding the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor. We find that the 
Petitioner has demonstrated the substantial merit of his endeavor. "[M]erit may be established without immediate or 
quantifiable economic impact." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l) quoting Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 892 
(AAO 2016). 
5 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
3 
Florida. He also cites to the importance of immigrants to the U.S. and to potential job creation. He 
notes supply chain and business potential, tax collection, as well as positive impacts in an 
economically depressed area. He additionally cites to the value of knowledge transfer, and unnamed 
economic, environmental, cultural, and social impacts. However, the record does not contain 
sufficient evidence to support the Petitioner's contentions. While the Petitioner states that his 
endeavor will "offer creative services aimed at reformulating production processes," he has not 
demonstrated exactly how that end would be accomplished. The Petitioner has not shown that his 
endeavor will offer "improved manufacturing processes" or similar outcomes that would translate into 
national implications in the field. Id. at 889. 
Review of the Petitioner's business plan indicates that he foresees his endeavor creating jobs (for 
engineers, technicians, and other professionals), causing technological innovation, reducing carbon 
emissions, saving lives by improving vehicle safety, and strengthening the automotive production 
chain. Having provided a strategic overview, the Petitioner's business plan does not detail how the 
intended goals will be operationally realized. For instance, the business plan states that technological 
innovation will result from "[s]ignificant investments in research and development (R&D) [that] will 
enable the company to create advanced solutions in energy efficiency, vehicle safety and automation." 
Yet, the evidence in the record does not provide concrete details that show how the endeavor will 
effectuate the Petitioner's claims. 
The Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter from Professor
I I We acknowledge that the expert opinion letter includes an asserted analysis of the 
proposed endeavor's national importance. After reviewing the Petitioner's qualifications and 
providing his opinion on why the Petitioner is well-positioned to carry out the endeavor, Professor 
I I asserts that the endeavor has national or even global implications for four reasons. First, 
Professor I I states that the Petitioner's "experience in environmentally conscious, sustainable 
practices set him apart from other experts in his field." Second, Professor! Istates that the 
Petitioner's "consultancy! company seeks to employ" engineers and "implement Electric Vehicles 
(EVs)." Third, Professor references an article concerning the automotive industry to conclude 
that the Petitioner will "conduct important work" and "impart[] his knowledge" to others and thus 
societal welfare will be enhanced. Fourth, Professor notes that the Petitioner's endeavor is in 
harmony with the Biden-Harris Administration's intention to strengthen the environmental 
sustainability of the transportation system. 
However, Professor I I letter does not meaningfully address how the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor would be effectuated to produce national or global implications within the field, significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers, or other substantial positive effects. Therefore, we assign less 
probative value to the letter. For instance, Professor states that the Petitioner's experience in 
sustainable practices sets him apart. However, the Petitioner's abilities go to Dhanasar 's second prong 
whether he is well-positioned to carry out the endeavor and not to the endeavor's national importance. 
Regarding the Professor's statement that the Petitioner's company will seek to employ engineers, 
nothing shows how employing a limited number of engineers in one metropolitan area in Florida 
would reach national or global implications. In sum, because the expert opinion letter lacks detailed 
analysis on how the endeavor's goals will be realized, or reach the scale of national importance, it is 
of minimal probative value. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by 
the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
4 
However, may give an opinion less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record. 
Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further 
discussion of the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. Thus, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve our decision on the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar 's second and third 
prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 of L-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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5