dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-W-H-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : OCT . 8, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
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). 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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140 , Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 
finding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree , but 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 for a national interest waiver under 
the Dhanasar framework. 
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: 
Matter ofT-W-H-
(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. 1 Dhanasar states that after EB-2 eligibility has been established, users 
may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver when the below prongs are met. See 
also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USeIS' decision 
to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
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, users 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 
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 
Matter ofT-W-H-
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 certification. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitoner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 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 the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
The Petitioner indicated that he intends "to continue working as a mechanical engineer with expertise 
in,__ _______ __,inl I design." He farther explained that "[a]s al !design 
specialist, [he] applies mechanical engineering principles to define the limits within which these 
I lean operate safely." In addition, the Petitioner asserted that his proposed work involves 
developing "numerical models of these I I and of complex l I I installation 
operations which require precise calculations that can predict how thd I will behave in the real 
environment but without having to actually build costly and time-consuming physical models." 
The record includes a June 2018 letter from the operations manager forl J a cons
1
1tancyl 
firm, stating that the Petitioner "was recruited in A ril 2018 followin the request of our client 
D fol a senjoj I I engineer to perfo on the I ~ project. 
Thel field is located approximately 150 miles .......... =,.,...,...in the I I area 
of the Gulf ofl ~"3 
The Petitioner provided information about U.S. roduction, our nation's 
reliance on I I infrastructure, L---------r-----,. ______ _J incident and their 
environmental and economic impact, the occurrence of,__ __ ____, leaks, and the state o~~--~~ in the 
United States. While the Director determined that the aforementioned information shows the Petitioner's 
proposed work as al I design engineer has substantial merit, he concluded that the evidence 
was not sufficient to demonstrate this endeavor's national importance. 
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. In Dhanasar, we farther 
noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n undertaking 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 As the Petitioner is applying 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 consider information about his current position to illustrate the capacity in which he 
intends to work in order to determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
3 
Matter ofT-W-H-
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 endeavor that has 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not properly consider the evidence indicating 
that he previously "developed a technique at I I called ------~ that has now 
become a part of standard techniques at the company." 4 The Petitioner's engineering skills and record 
of success in previou~ !projects, however, are considerations under Dhanasar' s second prong, 
which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue 
here under the first prong is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of his 
proposed work. 
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's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable I I analysis and engineering 
services for his employer's clients, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to 
demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. 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 the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently 
extend beyond his employer and its clients to impact his industry more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Nor has he shown that the particular work he proposes to 
undertake offers original innovations that contribute to advancements in the I !industry (rather 
than just affecting the~------~ project, for example, or other projects involving his 
company), or otherwise has broader implications for the field of mechanical engineering. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 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. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation attributable to his future mechanical engineering work, the record does not show 
that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's projects would reach the 
level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, 
the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
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 
4 The record includes an April 2012 report the Petitioner authored for I I ( an I I services company) 
entitled ·I I This internal report relating to the 'I I 
.__ __________ __. project describes an accelerated flowline production method whereby the welding 
operators were instructed to "perform only the root pass on the first welding station, leaving the hot pass to the second 
station." In addition, the PetitiQner provided a letter rroml I senior welding specialist tori I 
discussing the aforementioned C c f technique and his utilization of that methodology for the company's 
c=J Project in West Africa. The evidence, however, does not show that this production technique has been utilized 
beyond I I and its I I projects. 
4 
Matter ofT-W-H-
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 the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that 
he has not established 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. In visa petition 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; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799,806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-W-H-, ID# 4564428 (AAO Oct. 8, 2019) 
5