dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 11244090 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 8, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, 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 
qualified for classification as an individual of exceptional ability, and that he had not established that 
a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that he is eligible as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as for a national interest 
waiver. 
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) 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. 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent 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 off er 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 certification. 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 
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 discretionaiy in nature). 
2 
national to secure a job offer or for the 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) 
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 ce1iification. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The Director did not make a determination regarding the Petitioner's eligiblity as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. The record reflects that the Petitioner possesses the foreign 
equivalent of a baccalaureate degree and at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) and (3)(i)(A)-(B). 4 
B. National Interest Waiver 
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. 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 "intend[s] 
to continue using [his] expertise and knowledge in the field of Mechanical Industrial Engineering" and 
his "career plan in the United States is to work with U.S. multinational companies [as] a Mechanical 
Engineer." In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner offered an updated 
statement indicating that he "intend[ s] to prospect job opportunities in different companies that are 
experiencing a high demand of engineering talent." In addition, he claimed: 
My overall goal is to work as a Mechanical Engineer in the U.S. automotive industly, and 
I will also serve numerous field areas, including manufacturing, quality, maintenance, and 
safety. I will standardize innovative strategies, which will produce new levels of 
productivity by 1) launching cost reduction strategies, 2) enhancing customer satisfaction, 
and 3) improving production targets. This will lead to company-wide growth, and it will 
also heighten my served entity's malket relevance, and overall finance gains. 5 
3 SeeDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 As he meets the classification as a memberoftheprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree, a determination regarding the 
Petitioner's classification as an individual of exceptional ability is moot. 
5 The Petitioner also asserted that he "intend[ s] to pursue job opportunities in the following companies: General Motors, 
Ford Motor Company, Toyota, BMW Group, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, among others." As the Petitioner is a pp lying for 
a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from a specific employer. However, 
we will consider information about his current and prospective positions to illustrate the capacity in which he intends to 
3 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that his "proposed endeavor is to work as a Mechanical Engineer in 
the Automotive Industiy, and helping U.S. auto manufacturing companies in pursuing, adapting, and 
implementing engineering solutions and advancements required to excel in today's competitive global 
marketplace." The Director determined that the Petitioner demonstrated the substantial merit of his 
proposed endeavor, and the record supports that conclusion. 6 For the reasons discussed below, we agree 
with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. 
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 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner 
must demonstrate the national importance of his providing mechanical engineering services to auto 
manufacturing companies rather than the national importance of the mechanical engineering or the 
U.S. automotive field or industry. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor and that"[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. We also 
stated that "[a]n endeavorthathas 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. 
In his appeal brief, the Petitioner argues that "[t]hroughout his career, [he] has acquired many techniques 
to solve critical problems in an organized and systematic manner," "has worked as a mechanical and 
quality engineer in the automotive industry," and his "knowledge and expertise are unique, and urgently 
needed in the U.S." The Petitioner's experience and abilities in his field relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. 
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 proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. Although the 
Petitioner claims that " [h]e will offer significant improvements to his served companies' production 
flows , and create innovative manufacturing, quality , maintenance , and overall engineering standards" and 
"will support U.S. auto manufacturers in developing a competitive edge in both national and international 
markets," he has not offered sufficien t, specific informa tion and evidence to demon strate that the 
prospective impact of his proposed endeav or rises to the leve l of national importance. 7 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, the record does 
work in order to determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework . 
6 The record includes documentationregardingtheengineeringjob market in the United States . 
7 The Petition er claims that he provided "Industry Reports and Articles" as evidence of the economic impact of his proposed 
endeavor. The record reflects that in response to the Director 's RFE , the Petitioner submitted articles relating to business 
designs and logos, such as "What Role Does Design Play In Business Success?"; "The Importance of Having the Rigµt 
Logo" ; "Beyond Design Thinking" ; "Marketing Matters Now More than Ever" ; "Here's Why Good Design Isn 't 
Negotiable for Your Business" ; and "The Business Value ofDesign." The Petitioner did not explain how the evidence 
relates to his proposed endeavor, let alone shows its national importance. 
4 
not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his potential or 
futuristic employers , to impact the U.S. auto industry or U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not established 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. While he references U.S. auto sales and employment statistics, the Petitioner does not 
demonstrate how his specified proposed endeavor would somehow influence those figures . Without 
sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's mechanical engineering work would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar . Id. at 890 . Accordingly, the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar fra mework. 
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. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of theDhanasar analytical framewoik, 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. 
5