dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Metallurgical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12589188 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUNE 15, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a metallurgical 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. 
§ 1153(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
qualifies 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. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
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). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, users may, as matter of discretion, 1 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, 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 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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 record demonstrates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 3 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. 
After earning his doctorate, the Petitioner conducted research at~-------~ in I I 
Ontario, and the Un;versitvl I In April 2019, he began working as a 
research engineer at I Indiana, which filed a petition to classify the 
Beneficiary as an O-lA nonimmigrant with extraordinary ability. The Petitioner filed the present 
immigrant petition three months later. On the petition form, the Petitioner indicated that this position 
was permanent. While the appeal was pending, the Petitioner submittld a Jul] 2020 letter from the 
I I at University) I 
Alabama, indicating that he would begin working there as a postdoctoral fellow in August 2020. A 
~f address notification in February 2021 shows that the Petitioner moved froml I to 
L___J Georgia. The record before us does not identify his present employer. 4 
As outlined below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner only partially met the first prong under Dhanasar, by 
establishing the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor but not its national importance. We 
disagree with the latter determination and conclude that the Petitioner has also established the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. 
The introductory statement submitted with the petition indicates that the Petitioner researches "the 
development and characterization ofl I for the automotive and aerospace industries." The 
Petitioner follows this very general description with details about specific past projects he conducted 
as a student or with former employers. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director instructed the Petitioner to establish that his "proposed 
endeavor for I I has national importance." In response to the RFE, the Petitioner elaborates 
upon his plans: 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 The Petitioner received a Ph.D. in metallurgical engineering from! I University in._l ____ ___.I Canada in 
2015. 
4 USCIS records show that the Petitioner recently filed another immigrant petition on his own behalf, but that petition and 
its supporting documents are not part of the record before us. 
3 
Currently, I am working in three major fields of research in advance[ dl materials 
development for: (i) automotive industries to address! I and I I I regulations, (ii) renewable energy to address the 
energy crisis and (iiil !manufacturing processes. My future research will be 
leveraged in these three fields of study. 
Future Research Goals 
1. Development of advanced ~I ------~I for the automotive industry 
.. .__ ______________ __. is the fastest-growing material in today's 
automotive industry. . . . However, the ductility! I is currently limiting the 
formabilit of certain arts. The main way to improve the ductility o:ti I is to 
induce chan es, which is my expertise. By adding different! I 
the ,__ ____ _, will be changed, which will improve ductility and 
formability without changing the material's I I properties .... 
2. Development of._l ______ _,I for renewable energy industries 
... One of the barriers to the growth ofrenewable energy is the infrastructure - proper 
materials that can withstand severe weather. . . . [M]y goal is to develod..__ ______ ___, 
I l which will have higher strength and lower cost ... [ and] will be coated 
with the recently developed coating that I proposed for corrosion resistance .... 
3. Design and development of new alloys for thee=]manufacturing process 
... .__ ________ - __ .,... ... is a LJ manufacturing process having 
lightweight capabilities. Despite the numerous benefits, the growth ofc=Jis hindered 
by the high cost of powder production and its availabilit to rint quality products. In 
this project, I will design and develop different types o that are comf atible with 
~-_,~ . . I will chara~e printed parts in terms o ,__ ____ _.and_ I 
properties, especiallyl____....,.._Jperformance. I will then use the results to determine the 
optimum processes parameter for manufacturing a balance of cost and performance in 
3D printing. I will characterize the printed parts in terms ofl land 
I I properties, especially fatigue performance. I will then use the results to 
determine the optimum processes parameter for manufacturing a balance of cost and 
performance in 3D printing. 
The RFE response also clarified that the Petitioner's "Jroposed endeavor is distinct from his proposed 
employment as [a] research engineer a~._ _____ _. except insofar as "his employment ... enables 
him to continue his research in the metallurgical engineering field." 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner "failed to submit evidence establishing that 
[his] work fo~ I has national importance." On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Director "improperly conflated employment with proposed endeavor." We agree with this assessment. 
In discussing the nature of the proposed endeavor, the Director quoted a letter from a manager at 
4 
.__ ____ ...,,] who was describing the Petitioner's then-current work at the company rather than his 
broader research goals. While the Petitioner initially characterized his position atl I as 
"permanent," the record does not indicate that his intended research requires him to remain at that 
company. The July 2020 letter from th indicates duties consistent with the proposed 
endeavor, stating that he will "design and implemen ~---~ and detail characterization of the 3D 
printed parts for" aircraft. This letter is consistent with the conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor is not contingent on continued employment withl I 
Even in the context of the Petitioner's then-current employment, the Director did not sufficiently 
conrder to the e~dence submitted with the petition and in response to the RFE. That evidence shows 
thL suppliespto major automotive manufacturers. Therefore, the Petitioner's work 
at.__ ____ ~ to produce !components could improve the fuel efficiency of countless 
vehicles. The Petitioner has also referred to aerospace applications from the beginning of this 
proceeding; the benefits ofi l are, if anything, even more clearly evident for aircraft 
than for ground transportation. The publication of the Petitioner's research disseminates his findings, 
providing another avenue for implementation in the field. The Director already gave the Petitioner 
significant credit for the "hundreds of citations" of those published articles, so we need not repeat that 
discussion here. 
B. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied the second Dhanasar prong, but not the third. As 
explained below, we agree with this conclusion. 
In the denial notice, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the impracticality 
of securing a job offer and labor certification; sufficient urgency; or that the Petitioner has "unique 
knowledge or skills, [is] distinguished among [his] peers, or that [he is] the principal investigator of 
projects in the United States that can significantly influence [his] field." 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not claim that the job offer process, including labor certification, would 
be impractical. The Petitioner does, however, assert that "[t]he national interest in [his] research is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant foregoing the labor certification process," because his "research on 
I I is a crucial component of the I ~ effort to reducel I I I Background information about vehicle weight and renewable energy infrastructure 
explains why the Petitioner's work wit~ I is relevant to those areas of inquiry, but not why it is 
so urgent that the standard job offer process would impose unacceptable delays. For example, the 
Petitioner does not show that his work will, in the very near future, have a substantial, rather than 
incremental, impact on) I There is no stated or implied blanket waiver for all 
researchers whose work relates in some way to energy efficiency and .__ ________ ____.5 
5 We note that having asserted that the Director erred by conflating the proposed endeavor with the Petitioner's then-
current employment at the Petitioner contends that his work meets the "urgency" test because 
I ts clients include the and several automobile manufacturers. He also asserts: 
"His contributions to the design and production of a ~---~ are incredibly valuable to the automotive 
industry." 
5 
The Petitioner also contends that "he possesses considerable knowledge, expertise, and skills in a 
highly specialized field." The Petitioner, here, invites comparison to the petitioner in Dhanasar, 
whom we found "possesses considerable experience and expertise in a highly specialized field." Id. 
at 893. In Dhanasar, however, the petitioner's highly specialized field was "hypersonic propulsion 
systems (systems involving propulsion at speeds of Mach 5 and above)." Id. at 891. The present 
Petitioner has not established that his field of metallurgical engineering is comparably specialized. 
Furthermore, expertise does not inherently establish eligibility for the waiver. As we noted in 
Dhanasar (at n.3), the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree 
of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given field, and individuals of 
exceptional ability are generally subject to the statutory job offer requirement. 
The Petitioner contends that, even if qualified U.S. workers are available, it is in the national interest 
to waive the job offer requirement because he is "one of the leading researchers in his field." To 
support this claim, the Petitioner relies on citations to his published work. The Director already 
considered these citations when determining that the Petitioner satisfies the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 6 The Petitioner shows that his work has attracted more citations than that of 
the petitioner in Dhanasar, but citation rate was not a major factor in the approval of that petition. We 
mentioned citations only once, on page 892, when describing the submitted evidence. We made no 
determination that a researcher who exceeds that petitioner's citation rate is therefore eligible for the 
national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner has established that he is a prolific researcher in a worthwhile area of scientific inquiry, 
but has not shown 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. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not met the required third prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 Several factors affect the weight we give to the citation figures. The Petitioner compares his 2019 citation totals to an 
outdated 2018 chart published by Clarivate Analytics, and he compares his citations to those in the category of 
"Engineering" rather than "Materials Science" (which has higher baseline citation rates) without establishing how 
Clarivate classifies the relevant journals. Also, the Petitioner's high total number of citations is partly the result of the 
quantity of articles the Petitioner has published. The volume of the Petitioner's output of published work does not make 
the overall body of work more influential. 
6