dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Process Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 4, 2024 In Re: 31090557 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, who describes himself as a process engineering 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 the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner is eligible for, and merits as a matter of discretion, a national interest waiver. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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 an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F) . 1 Meeting 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
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, 3 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Advanced Degree Professional 
The Director found the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
While we agree that the evidence establishes the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in production engineering, after reviewing the record, we question whether it, in 
fact, contains evidence that the Petitioner actually possesses an advanced degree or five years of 
progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
However, as the resolution of the issues pertaining to the Petitioner's eligibility for a waiver of the job 
offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, under the Dhanasar analytical framework is 
dispositive of this appeal, we will reserve consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested 
EB-2 category. 4 See INSv. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make 
"purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter of 
L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal in removal 
proceedings where an applicant did not otherwise qualify for relief). 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
3 See also 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
4 That said, the Petitioner should be prepared to address the issue in any future NIW filings. 
2 
health, or education. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner proposes to work as a project manager in the process engineering field. 5 In his personal 
statement, he claims he will help companies optimize financial processes to support efficient resource 
allocation and cost reduction strategies, enhance operational efficiency, and drive sustainable practices 
in organizations. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit but not national 
importance. On appeal, the Petitioner states the Director applied a stricter standard of proof and did 
not analyze the totality of the evidence. Specifically, he asserts the Director "focuse[d] solely on 
information related to the [Petitioner's] contributions and expertise in the STEM field while neglecting 
the broader context provided in the Personal Statement, the Expert Opinion Letter, and the Probative 
Research." Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the record does not 
sufficiently show the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor such that it satisfies 
Dhanasar 's first prong. 
With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that he meets each 
eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what he claims is "more likely 
than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met his burden under the 
preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, 
probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376. 
Here, the Director's decision reflects consideration of the evidence the Petitioner claims was 
disregarded and includes a discussion of why the record did not establish the proposed endeavor's 
national importance. While the Petitioner generally asserts that the totality of the evidence is sufficient 
to satisfy Dhanasar 's first prong, he has not meaningfully addressed the Director's concerns regarding 
deficiencies in the evidence or articulated how the evidence as a whole overcomes the Director's 
analysis and findings. Id. (providing that "the director must examine each piece of evidence for 
relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of 
the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true). Additionally, although the 
Petitioner expresses disagreement with the Director's analysis of the evidence in the record, he does 
not adequately explain how the Director's specific findings and conclusions applied a stricter standard 
of proof. Simply disagreeing with the Director's determinations, including the weight given to 
different pieces of evidence, is insufficient to support the Petitioner's allegation that the Director 
erroneously applied the law and regulations to the facts of his case. 
Contrary to his arguments on appeal, the Petitioner's personal statement also does not support the 
claim that his proposed endeavor meets the national importance requirement of Dhanasar's first 
prong. While the Petitioner quotes numerous passages from his personal statement in his appellate 
brief, he does not offer any meaningful argument as to what "broader context" was neglected by the 
Director in her detennination. 
5 In the Executive Summary section of his personal statement, the Petitioner also states he plans to work in the United States 
as a "Process Engineer in Financial Management." 
3 
The Petitioner's personal statement generally emphasizes the value of business process management 
and process engineering, rather than focusing on the prospective impact of his specific endeavor. For 
example, the Petitioner discusses the importance of process improvement in business to ensure 
efficiency, reduce operational costs, increase productivity, mitigate risk, and optimize resource 
utilization, as well as the role that process engineers play to achieve these results. However, the 
Petitioner does not explain how the project management services his endeavor would provide are 
distinguishable from those of other project managers, or how providing services for an individual 
company would have broader implications and extend beyond his immediate employer and its clients 
to have regional or national economic impacts. For instance, the Petitioner hopes to provide his 
services to lwhere he will, among other duties: develop and implement efficient 
processes and workflows in alignment with management's goals and objectives; analyze estimate data, 
identify areas for improvement, and recommend process enhancements to optimize performance of 
product production; collaborate with cross-functional teams to design and implement process 
improvements; and monitor and evaluate process efficiency and effectiveness. However, these 
objectives simply describe the typical duties of a project manager and do not show that the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner also contends that his endeavor will have national implications because it will provide 
"significant economic progress and contribute to the economic vitality of the United States." Again, 
the record does not provide sufficient detail on how the Petitioner plans to accomplish these goals. 
His general references to his work "contributing to the overall economic growth and well-being of the 
nation" and "contribut[ing] exponentially to the U.S. economy," are too attenuated and rely more on 
generalizations regarding the results of typical business activity, rather than probative information 
about what the Petitioner plans to accomplish through his endeavor, how he will do it, and how it may 
have national importance. The Petitioner does not point to any corroborating evidence that would 
directly link his specific endeavor to the overall economy's growth or other substantial positive 
economic effects. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that the Director "arbitrarily and capriciously" ignored the expert 
opinion, which affirmed that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance. He contends 
that, because the Director did not raise grounds to contest the authority of the expert's opinion, we 
should defer to the opinion. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by a petitioner as advisory. 
Matter ofCaron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion 
or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way 
questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. 
Here, the expert opinion is of little probative value because it does not meaningfully address the details 
of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and why it, as opposed to the work of project managers in 
general, would have national importance. The opinion focuses on the Petitioner's field and neglects 
to concentrate on the specific proposed endeavor to explain its national importance. For example, the 
opinion claims that the Petitioner's endeavor has a "significant potential to employ U.S. workers" and 
4 
that the Petitioner's knowledge and skills will allow him to "generate great impact to U.S. companies," 
which will translate to "benefits for the industry and the U.S. economy." It also claims that the nation 
will benefit in terms of economic growth, job creation, and increased tax revenue. However, the 
opinion does not offer specific details on how the Petitioner's endeavor would accomplish these goals 
or explain how any impact would extend beyond the Petitioner's employer and its direct clients. 
Instead, the opinion primarily focuses on how project managers as a whole can make a significant 
impact on businesses and other sectors of the economy, which is insufficient to show the national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor itself. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889 
(noting that the focus of prong one is on the specific endeavor the noncitizen proposes to undertake). 
While the opinion also claims the Petitioner's expertise and experience in process engineering and 
financial management will contribute to the overall economic growth and well-being of the nation, the 
Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar 's second prong, 
which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue 
under the first prong is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of his 
proposed work's prospective impact, which he has not done. Consequently, the opinion letter is not 
persuasive to show the endeavor meets the requirements of Dhanasar 's first prong. 
In support of his claim, the Petitioner also submitted various articles and reports, including documents 
addressing manufacturing and process engineering, business management, mail center efficiencies, 
direct mail marketing, and the STEM field. The Petitioner reiterates that his proposed endeavor has 
national importance because these industries are matters of national priority. 6 However, the relevant 
question under Dhanasar 's first prong is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in 
which the individual will work; instead, the focus is on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. The articles and reports provide only general background 
information on these industries and fields and do not specifically relate to or discuss the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor, including how it might impact these fields more broadly, such that it rises to the 
level of national importance. Merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
We also are unpersuaded by the Petitioner's claim that his proposed endeavor has national importance 
due to the "urgent shortage of STEM professionals in the United States." The record contains 
insufficient evidence that the proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed 
6 The record does not adequately support the Petitioner's claim that he works in a STEM related position or that his 
proposed endeavor is in the STEM field. In his personal statement, the Petitioner proposes to work as a "Project Manager 
in the Process Engineering field." In the cover letter submitted with his petition, he describes the work of a process 
engineer as "designing and managing the manufacturing systems for a product" and "creat[ing] the stages of a 
manufacturing system that turn raw materials such as metal, plastic, or wood into an updated or new product." Despite 
making repeated references to "process engineering" and activities involving "manufacturing processes" in his personal 
statement, the Petitioner's description of his proposed duties appear to primarily encompass managing business and 
financially related processes. Likewise, his job offer with I I appears to consist of performing business 
and financial management activities involving mail and digital printing services, as opposed to project management in an 
engineering field. Consistent with this, his personal statement also reflects that he is petitioning to work in the 
United States as a "Process Engineer in Financial Management" (emphasis added). The Petitioner has not persuasively 
shown that his proposed endeavor is, in fact, in the STEM field. However, even if he had, the evidence would not be 
sufficient to show that the Petitioner has otherwise met his burden to show that his proposed endeavor rises to the level of 
national importance. 
5 
national shortage. Additionally, we note that shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by 
the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375. Because the Petitioner has not established through sufficient 
evidence in the record that his proposed endeavor meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the identified reasons for 
dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining 
issues concerning whether he has established eligibility for the EB-2 classification, as well as 
eligibility under the remaining two Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Therefore, 
we 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. 
6