dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Metallurgical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-R-R-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 22,2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETIT!ON: PORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION POR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a metallurgical 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 otler 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 the petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classif1cation, 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 
certitication. Maller o[Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Nebraska 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 she had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, 
and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Petitioner appealed the 
matter to us, and we dismissed the appeal. 1 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On motion, the 
Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. 
Upon review, we will deny the motions. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts, and a motion to reconsider is 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a motion to reopen are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 
8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(3). 
1 See Mauer of L-R-R-, ID# 3448049 (AAO Aug. 21, 20 17). 
.
Maller of L-R-R-
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must tirst demonstrate qualification 
tor the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree profe ssional or an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or busine ss. Because this classification 
require s that the individual ' s service s be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is requ ired 
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) Alien s who are members of the profes sions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualifi ed immigrant s who 
arc members of the professions holding advanced degree s or their equival ent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences , arts, or busines s, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy , cultural or educational 
interests , or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the science s, arts, 
professions , or business are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interest waiver: ... [T]he Attorney General may , when the 
Attorney General deems it to be in the nation al interest , wai ve the 
requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's servi ces in the science s, arts, 
professions, or business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute no'r the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest, " Dhanasar 
stated that after EB-2 eligibility has been established, USClS may , as a matter of discretion, grant a 
national intere st waiver if the petitioner demon strate s by a preponder ance of the evid ence: ( I) that 
the foreign national's propo sed endeavor has both substantial meri t and nationa l importance; (2) that 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed end eavor ; and (3) that , o n balance , it 
would be benefkial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. 2 
II. ANALYSTS 
A. Background 
The Petitioner states that she intends to continue her work as a metallurgical engineer with 
a manufacturer of premium steel wire and wire product s, where she 
has been employed since February 2016. 3 The record includes a statement from 
2 See Dhanasar. 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91 . for elaboration on these three prongs . 
3 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job otTer requirement , it is not necessary for her to have a job otTer 
2 
.
Matter <?l L-R-R-
general manager of stating that the Petitioner will contribute to the planning and 
definition of tech nical specifications and executi on of fundamental projects includi ng: designing 
and planning a new galvanizing plant for the company ' s California opera tions, preparing for the 
arrival of a new customi zed EVG mesh machin e, met allurgica l metallographic analysis for rod 
material , serv ing as lead auditor for a transition to a new quality man age ment syste m, eva luation and 
qualificati on of U.S. mill rod suppliers, and conducting all failu re analysis and fracture mechani cs 
including high tensile strength mesh testing. 
Further, counsel's brief in response to our RFE claime d that, in addit ion to her engineering duties , 
the Petiti oner "has the capacity to work as a researc h consultant for the oil and gas indu stry that will 
improve refine ry efficiency , increase producti on, reduce costs, and maximize plant opera tions." 
Cqunsel further explained that she also has the ability to serve the defense aviation indu stry 
"opening new avenues of investigation in the aerospace material s field," and that her work will 
contribute to the "development of more compl ex light alloy composite materi als for inno vative 
application s invo lving magne tic p roperties, low densi ty, and reduced fabrication costs to be used in 
aviation and aerospace structures." 
In den ying the Petitioner 's appeal, we found that she had established that she is well positioned to 
advance her proposed endeav or of supporting produc tion and manufacturing projects 
under the seco nd prong of the Dhanasar framework. However , we deter min ed she had n ot met the 
first pron g because she had not estab lished that her proposed endeavor was o f nation al imp ortance.
4 
Specifically , we determined that the Petition er had not established that her proposed work as a 
meta llur gical engine er will have impl icatio ns beyo nd her company and its customer s at a level 
sufficient to estab lish its national imp ortanc e. We also noted that the Petitioner had not provided 
sufficient details about the capacity in which she would work as a re searcher or cons ultant to 
demonstr ate the potential implication s of such wo rk. The Petitioner now tiles the curre nt com bined 
motion to reopen and recon sider claiming that she provided suffici ent evidence establishing that she 
has met the prongs of the Dhanasar framew ork. She , also provi des addi tional evidence , whic h we 
addres s below. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(3). 
A request to reanalyze docum enta tion without show ing how we incorrectly applied law or policy 
does not meet the requirements of a motion to reco nsider. 
In her moti on to reconsider, the Petitioner asserts that our appell ate decision, with regard to the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, was based on an incorrect app lication of Jaw or po licy, and that 
from a specific employer. However, we consider information about her position with to illustrate the 
capacity in which she intends to work. 
4 We noted that, as the Petitioner had not met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, she is not eligible for a national 
interest waiver and further discussion of the balancing fact?rs under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose. 
3 
Maller of L-R-R-
her previously submitted evidence established eligibility. She states that "metallurgical engineering 
does implicate and affect the national interest of the United States." 5 However, she does not 
specifically explain how we incorrectly applied the relevant law, nor has she identified 
documentation that we overlooked or misinterpreted. 
Here, we tind no error in our previous determination. In our prior decision, we analyzed the 
evidence relating to the Petitioner's proposed work and found that the record did not adequately 
document that the specific work she proposed to undertake offers original innovations that advance 
the steel and wire industry, or otherwise has broader implications in the field of metallurgical 
engineering. For purposes of a motion to reconsider, the question is whether our decision was 
correct based on the record that existed at the time of adjudication. On motion, the Petitioner states 
that the United States is in a historical moment in developing and maintaining productivity in the 
steel industry, making the Petitioner's proposed work of substantial benefit to U.S interests. 
However, she does not cite to any relevant law, regulation, or precedent establishing that our 
previous Jindings were based on an incorrect application of the law, regulation, or USCIS policy, nor 
does the motion demonstrate that our latest decision was erroneous based on the evidence before us 
at the time of the decision. 
C. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ l03.5(a)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § l03.5(a)(2) does not define what constitutes a "new" 
fact, nor does it mirror the Board of Immigration Appeals' definition of "new" at 8 C.F.R. 
§ l003.23(b)(3) (stating that a motion to reopen will not be granted unless the evidence "was not 
available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing"). Unlike the Board 
regulation, we do not require the evidence of a "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or 
undiscoverable. Instead, we interpret "new facts" to mean !acts that are relevant to the issue(s) 
raised on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the 
original petition. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence 
does not constitute "new facts." 
In our previous decision, we noted that the Petitioner did not meet the tirst prong of the Dhanasar 
framework based upon her proposed work as a metallurgical engineer, as it would not impact the 
tield of metallurgical engineering more broadly. Rather, the record indicates that her work will be 
limited to her company and its customers. Accordingly, we tound that her proposed engineering 
activities do not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
5 We note that the relevant question is not whether the field of intended work has national importance; instead we focus 
on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.'" /d. at 889. For instance, in Dhanasar, 
although we acknowledged the merit of "STEM" teaching in relation to U.S. educational interests, we found the 
petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his 
field more broadly. /d. at 893. 
4 
.
Matter of L-R-R-
We further found that the P etitioner did not provide sufticient detail explaining the capacity in which 
she intend s to work as a "researcher" or "consultant." We noted that, although the Petitioner's past 
graduate work involv ed resea rch and development of metallurgica l techn iques , the recor d did not 
indicate her propo sed work as a metallurgical engineer would be not focu sed on conducting original 
research. 
r n the motion to reopen, the . Petitioner offers a 2017 pro tile of the 
discussing the impact of the stee l industry on the U.S. economy and an excerpt from an article about 
policy regarding the U.S. steel industry. As note d previ ously, in determining 
national importance, we focus not on the broader field or industr y in which the individu al will work, 
but on "the speci tic endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." ld. at 889. She also 
provides a letter from director of the 
nanotechnology center, and the Petitioner's gradua te thesis advisor. writes 
that the Petitioner conducted original research that was subsequently published in a peer reviewed 
journal, , in 2009 . He explains that her research led 
him to con tinue his work in other related areas. While letter offers an- example o f the 
Petitioner 's past research accomplishment, it does not offer add ition al detail explaining the capacity 
in which she proposes to conduct original research or offer consul~ing services in the f uture . 
The submi ss ion on motion also includes an affidavit from the Petitioner stati ng that she intends to 
work in "eng ineering and meta llurgy research and development" and " to provide responsible 
solutions as an independent consultant." She states that she intends to utilize her expertise to 
"develop new alloys, lab tests for processes improve inent, material s processing and manufacturing , 
developm ent of new method s to understand steel fracturing and collapsing, energy tield and 
materials performance." Her statement does not include an explanati on deta iling how she .intends to 
carry out this research, how it will fit into her proposed metallurgical engineering duties, or the 
manner in which she intends to work. Without ·additional information explaining the nature of her 
proposed research or consulting work, we cannot determine its potential implica,tions and whether it 
is of national importance. As suc h, the evidenc e does not establi sh that the Petitioner has met the 
first prong o f the Dhanasar framework. 
Further , in our- previous deci sion , we noted that , even if the Petitioner had demon strated that she 
would primarily be engaged in metallurgy research that would stand to have broader implicati ons for 
the field, she did not establi sh she would be well positioned to advance such a resea rch endeavor 
under the secon d prong of the Dhanasur framework .6 On motion , the Petitioner has not presented 
sufficient eviden ce to overcome that finding . 
Finally, the Petitioner 's motion to reopen doe s not include new evidence relating to the third prong 
of the Dhcmasar framework. As stated in our· previous deci sion, becau se the Petitioner has not 
established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the 
6 Mauer of L-R-R- , at 6, n.8. 
5 
Maller of L-R-R-
Dhcmasar framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further discussion of the 
balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
In this matter, the motion to reconsider does not demonstrate that our prevtous decision was 
incorrect and the evidence provided in support of the motion to reopen does not overcome the 
grounds underlying our previous decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofL-R-R-. ID# 1034011 (AAO Mar. 22, 2018) 
6