dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Process Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7466059 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 25, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, .._ __________ _, seeks second preference immigrant classification for 
the Beneficiary 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). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Beneficiary 
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 additional documentation and a brief asserting that the Beneficiary 
is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
In these 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. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate the 
beneficiary's 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). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, 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, USCIS 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 rramework. 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 See also Poursina v. USC1S. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 4 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. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
For the reasons outlined below, we find the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's proposed 
endeavor meets the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Accordingly, the Director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The Petitioner indicated that it intends to continue to employ the Beneficiary as a process engineer. 5 
It stated that the Beneficiary's proposed work involves designing and planning the layout for material 
processing operations for its I including hardening, washing, laminating, etching, engraving, 
polishing, painting, and plating. In addition, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary's work is 
aimed at planning the sequence of operations and specifying procedures for cutting, shaping, and 
preparing basic material. It further contended that the Beneficiary's undertaking involves conducting 
tests and measurements throughout stages of production to determine control over variables such as 
temperature, density, specific gravity, pressure and viscosity. The Petitioner also noted that the 
Beneficiary's proposed endeavor includes establishing and submitting processing requirements to be 
met in designing and acquiring equipment; and designing, creating, and supporting processes for high 
volume manufacturing. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner stated: 
[The Beneficiary] will continue optimizing processes currently under development and 
demonstrate the feasibility of manufacturing processes to meet [the Petitioner's] high­
volume manufacturing needs. He will initiate tool installations to establish sufficient 
capacity so [the Petitioner] can build a successful model for future volume increases. 
He will also work with global supply management teams to secure supply of factory 
material. 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Beneficiary received a Ph.D. in chemistry from I I University in December 2017. 
5 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for the Beneficiary 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 
In addition, the record contains a letter from I I Technology Development (TD) Module and 
Integration Yield Engineer Manager with the Petitioner, who farther discussed the Beneficiary's 
proposed work involving the company's manufacturing processes, stating: 
[The Beneficiary] qualifies tools at our development site and in-situ ramp to 
manufacturing volumes to demonstrate the technology meets feasibility at the 
production site. [The Beneficiary] is tool owner and operator owner of a key process, 
responsible for operation equipment and process development to meet TD program 
requirements. He ... is an expert in troubleshooting the equipment to fix root causes 
of tool errors and implement solutions to prevent errors from reoccurring. He is capable 
of performing all levels of preventative maintenance to sustain tool availability to allow 
for maximum processing. 
The Petitioner's evidence includes information showing that its technologies are found in numerous 
I I products. The record also contains an article discussing the challenges facing 
thel !industry and their consequences for the U.S. economy and national security, and 
recommendations for ensuring U.S. leadership and innovation inl I. In addition, the 
appellate submission contains job descriptions for three process engineer positions with the Petitioner. 
While this documentation helps show the Beneficiary' proposed work as a process engineer has 
substantial merit, the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate this endeavor's national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's "employment has national importance by virtue of its 
national and global implications within the area of.__ ____ _. manufacturing and its direct link to 
the substantial positive economic effects of [the Petitioner's] continued success as a U.S. company." 
It offers information about the scale of its business operations and its economic impact on the U.S. 
economy. The Petitioner contends that it "employs more than 50,000 individuals at campuses across 
the country" and that the positive economic effects of its business operations are substantial, including 
generating billions in gross revenue and federal tax payments. Additionally, the Petitioner provided 
remarks from former U.S. President Barack Obama discussing the company's creation of U.S. 
manufacturing jobs. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry in which 
the individual will work or the past success of his employer; 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 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. 
To evaluate whether the proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to 
evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Beneficiary's particular undertaking. 
While the Petitioner asserts that the national importance of the Beneficiary's endeavor is evident from 
the scale of the company's overall business operations, it has not demonstrated that the economic 
implications of these operations would be attributable to the Beneficiary's process engineering 
4 
projects to an extent that his proposed work holds national importance. For example, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Here, the 
Petitioner has not shown that the wider economic effects it is claiming as a U.S. company are 
implications of the Beneficiary's specific proposed endeavor to provide process engineering services 
for its manufacturing equipment. Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information or 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Beneficiary's 
future process engineering work, it has not shown that benefits to the regional or national economy 
resulting from his projects would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated 
by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Furthermore, the issue here is not the broader implications of the Petitioner's innovations in 
~----~ manufacturing or the widespread utilization of its products by consumers, but rather 
the potential prospective impact of the Beneficiary's specific proposed work as a process engineer. 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 Beneficiary's lroposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond his employer to impact the I _ manufacturing industry more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Nor has the Petitioner sufficiently demonstrated that the 
particular work the Beneficiary proposes to undertake offers original innovations that contribute to 
advancements in the industry, or otherwise has broader implications for his field. Without sufficient 
documentary evidence of its broader impact, the Beneficiary's proposed process engineering work for 
the Petitioner does not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Beneficiary. The record includes 
documentation of his curriculum vitae, academic credentials, student awards, published articles, 
conference presentations, annual job performance review, and employee recognition. The Petitioner 
also offered evidence of articles that cited to the Beneficiary's published work, and reference letters 
discussing his work for the Petitioner and graduate research projects atl !University. 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's academic qualifications, awards, work experience, 
research articles, citation evidence, and letters of support indicate that he is well positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor. For the reasons discussed below, the record supports the Director's 
determination that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary is well positioned 
to advance his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar' s second prong. 
In a letter supporting the petition, rofessor of chemistry at ~I----~ 
University, stated that " i n his raduate research at University, [ the Beneficiary] worked 
on the design and use of as solubilizing agents fo~ I I ~ and.__ ___ _. modification." .__ ____ __. further indicated that the Beneficiary 
"developed new separation chemistry for a common class of protecting groups used in organic 
synthesis and worked on developing greener alternatives for thf: I lreaction - processes 
identified by an industrial group for improving I I synthesis," but did not provide specific 
5 
examples of how the Beneficiary's work has been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in 
the field. Nor did I I explain how the Beneficiary's graduate chemistry research relating 
to I . • . l or separation science renders the Beneficiary well positioned 
to advance his process engineering work for the Petitioner in the I I industry. 
In addition.I I noted that he and the Beneficiary published articles reporting their research 
findings in Catalysis Communications, Macromolecules, and Organic Letters. On appeal, the 
Petitioner presents a March 2019 citation report from Google Scholar reflecting that these articles have 
been cited 13, 6, and 4 times respectively since 2016. The Petitioner does not, however, offer 
comparative statistics showing the significance of this level of citation within the Beneficiary's field. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's process engineering work for the Petitioner,! I his 
supervisor, indicated that the Beneficiary "worked on the reconfiguration of the cleaner mixing system 
and slurry dispense system to allow for direct cleaning solution piping and slurry automatic dosing. 
His dedication to sustaining the process manually enabled the new product to be successfully 
certified." I I further stated the Beneficiary "documents detailed technical specifications 
when instruments are maintained and the information process to support a smooth transition of 
technology from low volume technology development sites to high volume manufacturing sites."c=] 
I I also asserted that the Beneficiary "reviews safety protocols before any engineering work is 
performed to ensure there are no safety issues, and conducts data analysis to monitor the health of 
instruments and the thickness of the wafers to ensure [ the Petitioner] manufactures products with 
highest quality." 
The record includes the Beneficiary's employee performance review that was prepared by~I ___ ~ 
This document states: "Job Description: [The Beneficiary] is a tool owner ofBSP0l, operation owner 
of the thin check. He is responsible for operation, equipment and process development to meet the 
TD program requirements." In the "Performance Summary" section of the review, I I 
concludes that "[a]s a new engineer, [the Beneficiary] is on a solid trajectory for his development." 
The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's performance review represents a 
record of success in the process engineering field or that it is otherwise an indication that he is well 
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
As further evidence under Dhanasar's second prong, the Petitioner provided an August 2018 email 
informing the Beneficiary and more than forty of his coworkers of their receipt of a "Cash A ward." 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted an October 2018 email announcing the company's Technology 
and Manufacturing Group's "second half 2018 Excellence Award recipients," but this announcement 
does not identify the Beneficiary. Regardless, the aforementioned employee awards post-date the 
filing of the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1). 
The record also includes documentation indicating that the Beneficiary received a.__ ______ __. 
Award" from the Department of Chemistry at I I Uniyrsity {May 2017) and an 
I I Scholarship in the amount of $1000 for the 2016 Semester" from 
the I I University I I Services Office. The Petitioner, however, did not 
offer the selection criteria for these awards. Nonetheless, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
receiving these academic awards represents a record of success in process engineering or is otherwise 
an indication that the Beneficiary is well positioned to advance his proposed work. 
6 
The evidence indicates that the Beneficiary has conducted, published, and presented research during 
his graduate studies, but the Petitioner has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor. While we recognize that research must add information to the pool 
of knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication, presentation, fonding, or academic 
credit, not every individual who has performed original graduate research will be found to be well 
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Rather, we examine the factors set forth in Dhanasar 
to determine whether, for instance, the individual's progress towards achieving the goals of his 
endeavor, record of success in similar efforts, or generation of interest among relevant parties supports 
such a finding. Id. at 890. The Petitioner, however, has not shown that the Beneficiary's work has 
served as an impetus for progress in the chemistry field or that it has generated substantial positive 
discourse in the~----~industry. Nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that his work 
constitutes a record of success or progress in process engineering. As the record is insufficient to 
show that the Beneficiary is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner has not 
established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
As explained above, 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. Here, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is eligible for a waiver due to his 
education, skills and experience in chemistry, the importance of his field, and the impracticality of 
labor certification. It also maintains that there is a labor shortage in science, technology, engineering, 
and mathematics fields. 6 However, as the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the 
Beneficiary's proposed endeavor and that he is well positioned to advance that endeavor as required 
by the first and second prongs of the Dhanasar framework, the Beneficiary is not eligible for a national 
interest waiver and farther discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no 
meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first and second prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 
we find that it has not established the Beneficiary 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 We note that the U.S. Department of Labor addresses shortages of qualified workers through the labor certification 
process. Accordingly, a shortage alone does not demonstrate that waiving the requirement of a labor ce1iification would 
benefit the United States. 
7