dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 5, 2024 In Re: 31284026 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that the Petitioner 
had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would 
be in the national interest. 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 Christa'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 a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree 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. 
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). Dhanasar states that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance; (2) that the noncitizen 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. See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) 
(joining 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 is discretionary in nature). 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. 
See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner 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 of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer is warranted. 
The Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan "to work as [ s ]enior [ m ]echanical [ e ]ngineer or [ v Jessel 
[ o ]perations [ m ]anager for offshore construction projects mainly linked to [ o ]ffshore [ w ]ind [ f]arms." 
The Petitioner identified offshore wind projects that already exist and that are in development, at which 
he could work. The Petitioner summarized his qualifications and he provided generalized information 
regarding offshore wind farms. The Petitioner generally stated that "technological integration and 
sustainability acts as a catalyst for job creation within the sector." However, the record does not 
establish how the Petitioner's work at any particular offshore wind farm may have significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers who would not otherwise be employed at the referenced wind farms. 
The Director concluded that "the proposed endeavor has substantial merit." However, the Director 
observed that, although "it is possible the [Petitioner's] work could have positive economic effects 
and could have the potential to create jobs, there has been no documentary evidence demonstrating 
this." The Director also noted that, although the record addresses whether the field in which the 
Petitioner proposes to work may have importance, it does not establish how the potential prospective 
impact of the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have the type of broader 
implications indicative of national importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. 
Ultimately, the Director concluded that the record does not establish whether the proposed endeavor 
may have national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. Additionally, although the 
Director concluded the record satisfies the second Dhanasar prong, the Director also concluded that 
the record does not satisfy the third Dhanasar prong. See id. at 888-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his prior generalizations regarding "how important the [ e ]nergy 
industry is" and information he provided regarding his "extensive background," including "the many 
milestones he accomplished for himself and others in the industry," establish the proposed endeavor 
has national importance. The Petitioner reiterates information regarding his qualifications and prior 
work experience, and generalized information regarding offshore wind farms. 
2 
The Petitioner also summarized the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 551, et seq., 
and how it may be violated, without clarifying how the Petitioner believes the Director's decision on 
the underlying benefit request may have violated what he describes as "the procedures agencies must 
follow when creating, modifying, or repealing rules," contemplated by the APA. Because the 
Petitioner does not specifically assert that the Director's decision on the underlying benefit request 
violated the rulemaking procedures of the AP A, nor does the Petitioner elaborate on how it possibly 
could have, we need not address the Petitioner's references to the APA further. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential 
prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by 
the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or those with 
"significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
We first note that the Petitioner's references to his qualifications, including his prior work experience, 
are material to the second Dhanasar prong, whether an individual is well positioned to advance a 
proposed endeavor, which, the Director addressed. See id. at 888-91. However, the Petitioner's 
references to his qualifications, including his prior work experience, are immaterial to the first 
Dhanasar prong, whether the specific endeavor an individual proposes to undertake may have both 
substantial merit and national importance. See id. Because the Petitioner's references to his 
qualifications, including his prior work experience, are immaterial to determining whether the specific 
endeavor he proposes to undertake may have national importance, they do not satisfy the first 
Dhanasar prong. See id. 
Next, the Petitioner's references to generalized information regarding offshore wind farms and "how 
important the [ e ]nergy industry is" relates to the industry or field's importance. However, as explained 
above, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, 
field, or profession in which an individual will work. Instead, the issue is whether the potential 
prospective impact of the specific endeavor the individual proposes to undertake has the type of 
broader implications indicative of national importance. See id. at 889. The generalized information 
that the Petitioner references does not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to 
undertake, and how that specific endeavor he proposes to undertake may have "national or even global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances," "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area," or other broader 
implications indicative of national importance. See id. at 889-90. Therefore, the generalized 
information the Petitioner references on appeal does not establish how the proposed endeavor may 
have national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. 
We acknowledge that the offshore wind projects that already exist and that are in development, at 
which the Petitioner proposes to work, employ or plan to employ U.S. workers. However, merely 
proposing to work for an employer that already employs or plans to employ U.S. workers does not 
3 
establish "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic 
effects" by virtue of a proposed endeavor. See id. The record does not establish how the Petitioner's 
work activities at any of the potential employers he identified would affect the respective entities' 
plans to employ U.S. workers. On the contrary, the respective entities appear to employ or plan to 
employ U.S. workers, regardless of whether they were to employ the Petitioner, too. Therefore, the 
record does not establish how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake would affect 
the respective entities' potential to employ U.S. workers, whether significantly or otherwise. 
In turn, the record does not establish how the Petitioner's work for any of the potential employers 
would have "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from 
certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." See id. On the contrary, the wind 
farms either already have been built or already have been designed by an individual or individuals 
other than the Petitioner. Even to the extent that the Petitioner's work may affect processes at a wind 
farm already built or designed by other individuals, the record does not establish how such work would 
have the type of broader implications that rise to the level of "national or even global implications 
within a particular field," contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. Relatedly, the economic 
effects the offshore wind farms at which the Petitioner proposes to work appear to result, whether 
currently or prospectively upon future operation, regardless of whether the Petitioner would work at 
any particular wind farm. Even to the extent that the Petitioner's work may affect the economic effects 
of whichever wind farm at which the Petitioner would work, the record does not establish how such 
effects would rise to the level of substantial positive effects indicative of national importance. See id. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We 
reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-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. 
4