dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 24, 2024 In Re: 33943646 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a technical project manager, 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 that a waiver of the job offer requirement is 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. 
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: 
• 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. 
1 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional. Based upon the evidence in the record that the Petitioner possesses the foreign equivalent 
of a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, we agree. The Director also concluded that the proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit, and that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance it. However, the 
Director concluded the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver because 
he did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor or that, on balance, waiving the 
job offer requirement would benefit the United States. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with 
the Director that the Petitioner has not established the proposed endeavor's national importance and 
therefore has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner proposes to develop thermal performance models and thermal management designs for 
sustainable, cost-effective, and energy efficient electronic cooling solutions for applications including 
data centers, cloud computing, telecommunications, semiconductor and consumer electronics. The 
Petitioner intends to pursue this endeavor through employment as a technical project manager and 
states that he would seek employment with a company such as "Amazon AWS." 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director erred by primarily focusing on the potential economic 
impact of the endeavor and by conflating the Petitioner's proposed endeavor with the Petitioner's 
employment. The Petitioner also asserts that the proposed endeavor represents a potential "improved 
manufacturing process" as described in Matter ofDhanasar and is therefore nationally important. 
First, we disagree with the Petitioner's characterization that the Director's "rationale regarding 
national importance is almost entirely focused on economic benefits." The Petitioner contends that 
Matter of Dhanasar discusses potential employment of U.S. workers and other potential economic 
benefits as only examples of the ways in which national importance may be established, and that 
demonstrating economic benefits is not "a standard of adjudication." We agree with the Petitioner 
that demonstrating potential positive economic impacts is not required to demonstrate an endeavor's 
national importance. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. However, the Director's decision 
did not state or imply that potential positive economic benefits are required for a finding of national 
importance. Rather, the Director discussed potential economic benefits only as one of the ways in 
which national importance may be-but in this case was not-established. The Director's 
consideration of whether the proposed endeavor has the significant potential to employ U.S. workers 
or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects is appropriate in the national importance 
analysis and in line with our decision in Matter ofDhanasar. See id. 
Second, we appreciate the distinction that the Petitioner draws between, on the one hand, the proposed 
endeavor and, on the other, the employment that the Petitioner will hold in furtherance of that 
endeavor. Nevertheless, we conclude that the Director's consideration of the Petitioner's employment 
plans as part of the national importance analysis did not improperly conflate the two in this instance. 
Here, the consideration of the way in which the Petitioner intends to implement his proposed 
endeavor-specifically, by working as a technical project manager for a company such as Amazon­
is an appropriate consideration for the national importance analysis because it has the potential to 
affect the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor. Counsel's appellate brief urges us, 
in determining the national importance of the endeavor, to consider only the potential prospective 
2 
impact of the Petitioner's research on developing thermal performance models and thermal 
management designs for electronic cooling in data centers, and not to consider that the Petitioner 
intends to pursue this endeavor as a technical project manager. But the potential prospective impact 
of a research-based endeavor may be affected by whether the results of that research will be 
disseminated through the field such as with academic journals and conference presentations, or 
whether they will remain as part of a company's private research and development. The record here 
does not provide sufficient detail about how the Petitioner's research, completed through this 
prospective employment, has the potential to have a broad impact that reaches beyond the Petitioner's 
prospective employer. We also note that the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why he 
specifically seeks the position of a "technical project manager," or the duties of this position as the 
Petitioner understands them, to demonstrate that how much of this position would involve pursuing 
research, rather than a position that would primarily involve managing or executing a company's 
specific projects. We agree that endeavors related to "certain improved manufacturing processes" 
may rise to the level of national importance. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Additionally, 
we acknowledge that such endeavors could be pursued through industry-based research and 
development. But the burden is on the Petitioner to demonstrate that the potential prospective impact 
of the endeavor, pursued through this avenue, rises to the level of national importance. In this case, 
we conclude that the specific way in which the Petitioner intends to implement the proposed endeavor 
is material to assess its potential prospective impact, and that the record lacks sufficient detail to show 
that it rises to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner's claims on appeal do not overcome the basis for the Director's findings as they relate 
to the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Moreover, upon de novo review, we agree that 
the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Because the 
documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve our opinion regarding his eligibility under the second and thirds Dhanasar 
prongs. 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 of 
L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
the applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
The Petitioner has not met the national importance requirement of the first prong of Dhanasar. We 
therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3