dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Process Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9611621 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 16, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a process 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 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition and dismissed a subsequent motion, 
concluding that the Petitioner 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 he 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 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 framework. 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 Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 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. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated 
the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
Regarding his claim of eligibility under Dhanasar' s first prong, the Petitioner indicated that he intends to 
continue his process engineerin and ro · ect mana ement work "in construction and operation of 
processing facilities in the industries." He 
asserted that he plans "to support the establishment of new facilitites" in the ' '-------------' I I' industries. In addition, the Petitioner noted that he is "currently employed in a full-time 
position with I I as a Process Engineering Specialist with a dual role as project 
manager.I I has specifically hired me to strengthen the technical capabilities in their 
I !Office with regard to.__ _________________ ____. projects."4 The 
Petitioner further stated: 
I am now leading the process design and project management for the contract that 
I I has with I I The scope of the contract is to provide a 
basic engineering design package that supports I ts demonstration facility that 
will be built in China. 
. . . They have contracted with to prepare the design 
specifications for all associated equipment that support the I l reactors. In 
that regard, I have been personally responsible for the design of utility systems, 
tankage, control strategies, safety systems, facility integration, plot plan development, 
and supervision of the design team in I I 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that his proposed endeavor is aimed at advancing and strengthening 
"the technical capabilities of'------,---.,......,..,.--,---....,.....-----,-----,-,..,.....,...___,,.___,facilities by utilizing his skills and 
long-term experience to support the establishment of new facilities in these industries." He contends that 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we will consider information about this position to illustrate the capacity in which he 
intends to work in order to determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
3 
his undertaking involves "the development and construction of future facilities internationally and 
particularly in the United States." 
The record includes information about manpower shortages in the floating production storage and 
offloading (FPS0) industry, the costs for U.S. Forces to maintain the security of _______ -
in thd I mass layoffs in theOindustry, the consequences relating to Venezuela's loss of 
Oorkers a projected shortage of workers in th~ l!.S.:7industry, staffing problems attributable to 
low rices, labor capacity strains o~....._ __ __,_Jco'nstruction markets, and microD plants 
in the . In addition, the Petitioner provided articles discussing a sustainable recovery in 
th market, the mass departure ofl I professionals in thel ! industry, the effect 
of indust la offs on recruiting new talent, I I production's impact on U.S. national security 
interests 's announcement to construct ,..,.._.......,........_.......,.ation plant that uses bio-fermentation to 
convert to ethanol, the future of the indus~e expansion o~ ts 
.__ ______ __, in Indonesia, and.__---,-..-----'' s export ofl__Jto Europe . He also offered 
information about the generation gap in the industry, the industry's rising number of retirements, 
the outlook in the floating production indus rices as a major determinant of employment 
growth, the overabundance ofl I in theL--__, ___ .......,nd ways companies are managilg and I 
utilizing the extra supp ly, a projected~,<l,U~.i:....uJ....U..u.i... __ _, industry, and the operations of 
D ( the company which acquired .__ _______ ..., The record therefore shows that the 
Petitioner's proposed work as a process engineer and project manager has substantial merit. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; 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 further 
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 bas 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 under stood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
In his appeal brief, the Petitioner asserts that his pro{ osr endeavor advances the infrastructure of the 
U.S~ !industry. He contends that with "more being produced and sold by the United States," 
our country is positioned "to better compete at an international level." The Petitioner further maintains 
that his involvement in building new facilities "benefits our economy and worldwide position in theD 
I I industry." He also argues that "whether he builds facilities in the [United] States or 
internationally," his undertaking stands to "bring more work and profits to our national, state, and city 
econom[ies]." Additionally, the Petitioner claims that "[h]e is typically involved with projects that have 
a capital cost between $50M anq._$.1.QB:.~md that "[s]ince these are very large facilities, they will have an 
impact on the local economy inL___J as well as nationally." Furthermore, the Petitioner states that 
his proposed work "benefits our environment" and offers "relief of the amount of1 I being 
pumped in thd I" 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potentia l prospective impact" of his work. Although the 
Petitioner 's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable process engineering and project 
management services for his employer and its clients, he has not offered sufficient information and 
4 
evidence to demon strate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of 
national importance. 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, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently 
extend beyond his employer and its clientele to impact the process engineering field, his industry , or 
the environment more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
While the Petitioner asserts that the national importance of his endeavor is evident from the size of the 
facilities for which he provides project management services, he has not demonstrated that the 
economic implications of these facilities would be attributable to the Petitioner's projects to an extent 
that his proposed work holds national importance. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the wider 
economic effects he claims are implications of his specific proposed endeavor to provide process 
engineering services for his employer's clients. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S . workers or 
otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without sufficient information 
or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, 
the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the 
Petitioner 's projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, the Petitioner 's proposed work does not meet the first prong of 
the Dhanasar framew ork. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose . 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established he 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. 
5