dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 05, 2024 InRe: 31383917 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a Mechanical Engineer, 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 the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver at the time of filing. The matter is 
now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts eligibility and 
argues that the director applied an incorrect standard of proof in evaluating the evidence provided with 
his petition. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&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 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 
• 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 indicated his desire to remain in the United States and continue his 
work as a mechanical engineer and manager with I I 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated through counsel: 
[The Petitioner] is a professional who occupies a crucial position in the company where 
he works. His field of expertise is the management of work teams and the optimization 
of production processes for products directly related to the automotive industry. He has 
vast experience in ensuring that plastic products are produced to specifications to meet 
the demands of various automobile manufactures, as well as in managing facilities to 
improve product quality and performance, increase business competitiveness in the 
market, reduce costs, and increase profitability. 
This type of professional, as it is intended to demonstrate, is essential to the nation and 
is directly aligned with the national interest of the U.S. as [the Petitioner's] work is an 
element in strengthening the national automotive industry and facilitating a transition 
to mass adoption of electric cars. 
The Petitioner further stated: 
Many of these leading U.S. automotive plants have partnered with I I as 
their supplier of injection-molded plastic products made on-demand to produce ever 
lighter, stronger, and more efficient cars, especially electric cars, which as it turns out, 
rely heavily on these attributes to be viable and affordable. 
This is where the undeniable relevance of [the Petitioner] comes in, whose expertise in 
automotive engineering allows him to work closely as a liaison between! I 
and automakers. [The Petitioner's] essential role in the company is managerial. 
However, the indispensability of his technique comes from his academic background 
in mechanical engineering, and his many years of experience dealing specifically with 
customers in the automotive industry, with a focus on customer relations. 
The Petitioner provided details regarding his work history, information about the broader automotive 
industry, information regarding the obstacles in the U.S. transition to electric vehicles, and evidence 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
of his past contributions to the automotive industry. This evidence included reference letters from 
prior and current employers, presentations created by the Petitioner regarding new products, and news 
articles related to the automotive industry. 
The Director issued a request for evidence seeking information related to the Petitioner's specific 
proposed endeavor, his position to complete that endeavor, and whether, on balance, it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a new brief and a personal statement regarding the creation of a 
consulting company to provide mechanical engineering services to the U.S. automotive industry. In 
his personal statement provided in response to the RFE, the Petitioner describes his endeavor as 
follows: 
Withl I I will seek to understand the complex manufacturing issues that clients 
face to identify, design, and implement correspondingly unique quality engineering 
solutions. It is worth highlighting that state-of-the-art technology and tools are 
employed to develop these solutions, leading to producing quality products. 
will provide quality engineering services for clients that include, but are not 
limited to, several automotive vehicle manufacturers and suppliers. Vehicle 
manufacturers are in the business of churning out multiple new automotive vehicle 
models each year. Each time their assembly lines must be reconfigured or retrofitted 
in preparation for new model production, defect elimination, and process improvement 
opportunities arise forl Ito offer its specialized quality engineering services. In 
this sense,I I is choosing to locate its United States headquarters within a state 
where end-users have installed their manufacturing facilities. 
Taking this into consideration, I prove to be a valuable asset to be added to the U.S. 
Automotive Industry since that, through my role as an entrepreneur, can leverage my 
skills and expertise to open a successful company in the country, focusing on areas 
where my experience aligns with the country's best interests. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had made material changes to the proposed endeavor in an 
effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to an application's requirements. Matter of 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 ( comm'r 1998). The Director further determined that while the 
Petitioner had shown his education, professional experience, and recommendation letters from 
individuals in the automotive industry demonstrated knowledge of his field, he had not established 
that he was well positioned to be an entrepreneur or CEO operating his own business. Lastly, the 
Director determined that, on balance, the Petitioner had not established it was in the best interest of 
the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements for EB-2 classification. 
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 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining 
3 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Id. at 889. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's endeavor to work as a mechanical engmeer has 
substantial merit but that he did not establish national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner provides 
a brief asserting eligibility for a national interest waiver. The Petitioner contends that USCIS violated 
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) but does not cite to a specific section of the APA that USCIS 
is meant to have violated. Rather, the Petitioner generally asserts that the Director used boilerplate 
templates and language to issue the denial and request for evidence. While the Director used common 
language regarding the requirements and acceptable evidence for NIW adjudication, it is clear from 
the denial that the Director gave individualized consideration to the Petitioner's initial proposed 
endeavor and his position to complete that endeavor by evaluating the submitted evidence. 
The Petitioner also argues that his proposed endeavor is of national importance and that there was not 
a material change to the Application. Instead, the Petitioner argues that: 
As a mechanical engineer and business manager, the Petitioner has consistently sought 
to leverage his expertise to drive innovation and enhance the operational efficiency of 
the Automotive industry, which is intrinsically tied to the role of a business owner and 
CEO. 
The shift to a business owner and CEO does not materially change the nature of the 
Petitioner's work but rather extends the scope of his influence within the same industry. 
The Petitioner's argument is unavailing. The transition from employee to business owner and 
consultant is a far greater change in circumstances than the Petitioner concedes. While the Petitioner's 
end objective remains the same, advancing the U.S. automotive industry, the means by which it is 
achieved is drastically different. Therefore, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner's new 
proposed endeavor to establish a consulting company in the United States is a material change to the 
initial petition. Because the new set of facts presented in response to the RFE constitute a material 
change to the petition, they cannot and do not establish eligibility, and we need not address them 
further. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; Matter of Izummi, 22 
I&N Dec. at 176. 
Even ifwe were to consider the Petitioner's second proposed endeavor of establishing and running his 
own consultancy business, he has not provided sufficient detail to establish the economic, scientific, 
cultural, or societal implications of the endeavor. While the Petitioner provides substantial 
information regarding the automotive industry as a whole and the current interest in the transition from 
gas powered vehicles to electric, he has not demonstrated that his specific consultancy services would 
have a significant economic or scientific impact that would rise to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner has not provided a business plan with revenue projections or staffing models. The 
Petitioner vaguely mentions "vehicle manufacturers and suppliers" and states that he "is choosing to 
locate" his business "within a state where end users have installed their manufacturing facilities." But 
he has not otherwise identified a base of operations, specific clients within the automotive industry, or 
the specific benefit his consulting services would have for those companies. 
4 
The Petitioner's broad statements regarding leveraging his work history into a new business that would 
advance the automotive industry is not sufficient to establish national importance. The first prong of 
the Dhanasar framework is forward looking, meaning we evaluate the potential future impact of the 
Petitioner's specific business, scientific, educational, or health related endeavor. In this context, the 
Petitioner's past record of success in his industry is immaterial to the business he intends to operate. 
Such considerations are better examined under the second prong of the Dhansar framework regarding 
whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Here, the Petitioner has 
not provided the evidence necessary to establish the potential economic impact of his endeavor or that 
the nebulous proposed consultancy services would, in fact, benefit a specific client or clients let alone 
the automotive industry as a whole and reach the level of national importance. 
At the time of initial filing, the Petitioner did not assert that he would create and run his own business 
in the United States. Rather, he stated that he sought to continue his work as a mechanical engineer 
and manager for an established plastics company that he was working for at the time. As described 
above, the Petitioner's benefit to the relationships between I I and its customers was an 
argument for his national importance. While his position withing I lmay have made him 
valuable to that company and their clients, the Petitioner has not shown that his future work for 
I I as a mechanical engineer and manager has the potential to impact the automotive industry as 
a whole and rise to the level of national importance. 
Because the Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor is of national importance, he is not 
eligible for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. We reserve our 
opinion regarding whether the evidence of record satisfies the second and third Dhanasar 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5