dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10994914 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 2, 2021 
Form 1-140, 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, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she 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 she is eligible 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 nova 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 ofjob 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. 
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 offer 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 
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) 
1 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) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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 certification. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 4 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. At the 
time of filing, the Petitioner indicated employment as a mechanical engineer withl I I I in c===1 California since 2016. 5 She previously served in research assistant positions 
while attendin~niversity and the University I I from 2009 - 2016. 
In the request for evidence and decision, the Director indicated that the Petitioner satisfied Dhanasar' s 
first prong of substantial merit and national importance of her proposed endeavor without explaining 
his conclusion. Because the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner fulfills the first prong, we 
will withdraw the Director 's determination for the reasons discussed below. 
At initial filing, the Petitioner asserted that she "proposes to continue her research on the development 
and discovery of theoretical, experimental, and numerical methods to simulate, optimize, and design 
new mechanical products ." As evidence of this proposed endeavor, the Petitioner submitted a job 
letter froml !listing various position responsibilities, such as "[r ]esearch , design, evaluate, 
install, operate, or maintain mechanical products, equipment, systems or processes to meet 
requirements" and "[ d]evelop or test models of alternate designs or processing methods to assess 
feasibility, sustainability, operating condition effects, potential new applications, or necessity of 
modification." 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889 . However, the Petitioner did 
not specifically describe her endeavor. Instead, the Petitioner broadly claimed to continue her research 
in unidentified methods and for unspecified mechanical products. Further, the job letter reflects a 
general overview of the job position of a mechanical engineer ad I rather than adequately 
identifying her exact endeavor. As she did not establish her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that such endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. 
Regardless, pertaining to the substantial merit, the Petitioner claimed : 
The research conducted by [her] affects numerous applications in everyday life. 
Mechanical engineering as a field is necessary for many modem devices, from printer 
nozzles to spacecrafts and machine tools. Furthermore, the knowledge that [she] 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Petitioner received a Ph.D. in mechanical and aerospace engineering froml I University ofD 
llin January 2016. 
~e Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for her to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we will consider information about her current position to illustrate the capacity in which 
she intends to work in order to determine whether her proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
3 
provided regardi~ics is used in a number of specialized applications, such 
as biomechanics,.__ ___ __. devices, combustion engines, and air vehicles. 
In support of her claims, the Petitioner referenced a screenshot from omicsonline.org listing various, 
general applications of mechanical en ineerin . In addition, the Petitioner highlighted language from 
letters by and who discussed the Petitioner's previous research 
and work. Specifically,.__ ___ _.stated that "[t]hrough her pioneering work, [she] has greatly 
broadened the field's capabilities, and in doing so, she has paved the way for new, even more 
progressive research," andl I indicated that "[i]n addition to growtng h~r field's 
understanding of.__ _____________ ~dynamics and computational ynamics, 
[the Petitioner's] work provides important contextual information to researchers and engineers 
responsible for designing air vehicles, ranging from airplanes to space shuttles." 
The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, 
science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884. Although her field 
and occupation fall within science and technology, the Petitioner did not show that her proposed 
endeavor contains substantial merit because she has not sufficiently identified her precise endeavor. 
Further, the omicsonline.org screenshot relates to a broad overview of the mechanical engineering 
field and occupation rather establishing how her proposed endeavor possesses substantial merit. 
Moreover, her advisory opinion letters discuss her prior work without indicating the value of her 
proposed endeavor. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the substantial merit connection between 
her specific, proposed endeavor and the explicit application of mechanical engineering. 
In arguing national importance, the Petitioner asserted: 
[Her] proposed endeavor also has broad implications for the field. Her work greatly 
impacts the assessment and prediction of1 I which are 
necessary factors accounted for in the aircraft and aerospace fields. Given that the US 
aviation market is currently the largest in the world, with nearly 21,000 business 
aircrafts in service in 2017, it is clear that her research is important to the United States 
.... Moreover, [her] research has also resulted in the development ofl I 
which are useful for application of such things as underwater drones. Indeed, the US 
Navy has recently created it first Unmanned Undersea Squadron One, or UUVRON 1, 
thereby confirming the importance of [her] research to underwater national security 
concerns. 
The Petitioner submitted a screenshot from statista.com regarding statistics for the business aviation 
market in the United States, a screenshot from thedrive.com relating to UUVRON 1, and additional 
advisory opinion letters from letters by.__ ______ ...,, I I and.__ _____ _. 
I I that discuss the Petitioner's prior research. For instance " o ne of [ the Petitioner's] most 
notable research endeavors involved her assessment of dynamics' capability of 
predicting'--------------------~ interactions" and "[she] has been 
instrumental in researching such tools, and her research falls squarely within the purview of U.S. 
interests" I l "she generated.__ _________ which is especially useful in the 
development ofi I" and "[the Petitioner] has considerably improved the efficiency and 
the overall capabilities of these vital'------~ which in tum strengthens the U.S.' s ability to 
4 
protect itself by conducting underwater missions"I I; and "[the Petitioner 's] exploration 
of means of predicting the interactions between! ~ has palpable 
ramifications for the mechanical engineering field, as well as for the aviation and astronautics sectors 
in general" I I 
In general, the Petitioner's prior research and findings 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 she proposes to undertake has national importance 
under Dhanasar 's first prong. Again, the Petitioner did not specifically identify her proposed 
endeavor. Rather, the Petitioner broadly claimed that she would continue her research and relied on 
her past findings and those possible impacts as evidence of national importance . To evaluate whether 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence 
documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her future work. The Petitioner did not differentiate 
her past research from her prospective endeavor, and she did not demonstrate the nexus between her 
proposed endeavor and the possible effect on the business aviation market or underwater drones. 
Although she depends on her past work, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and 
evidence to establish that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the requirements of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not shown eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Further analysis of her 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 the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not established her eligibility 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