dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Process Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10692532 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP . 14, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a senior engineer 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, 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. 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. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a senior process engineer atl I. 5 In 
this position, the Petitioner "works on equipment evaluations and the optimization and development 
of unit processes to fulfill the performance requirements of devices," and "proposes to continue his 
work on the development and analysis of materials for I I' In the submitted job 
description for the Petitioner's current position, it stated thatl lwas seeking a "new or 
recent PhD or entry level engineer" and the primary responsibilities of the position is to "conduct 
equipment evaluations with major I I vendors, define initial tooling needs for start-up, 
develop and/or optimize unit processes in order to meet the overall technology roadmap and device 
performance requirements fo~ land beyond." 
The Petitioner further indicated that he intends to continue to work as a senior process engineer in the 
field of I I focusing on the development and analysis of materials for I I I I and support the manufacturing ofi l The Director noted that the 
Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor would have national or global implications, or 
a broader prospective impact upon the field, or original innovations that contribute to advancements. 
Although the Petitioner 's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable developments in 
.__ _______ __,for the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 6 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the proposed endeavor involves both his ongoing employment and 
the additional research projects he outlined . In addition, the three research projects he proposes to 
study are: ( 1) the materials; 2 I I 
phenomena; and, (3) the interface between.__ __ _. materials and.__ _______ ___,devices. In 
addition, the Petitioner states that the evidence also shows that [the Petitioner's] work to develop more 
efficient and environmentally-friendly I I material aligns with U.S. priorities such as 
reducing the cost o~ !limiting harmful greenhouse gas emissions." 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three ron s. 
4 The Petitioner received a Ph.D. in Physics from the University o '-----,~..:..:a:...::==;, 
5 The Petitioner previously served as a research assistant at the University o from August 2012 until January 
2018. 
6 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner also states that "[c]onsidering that [the Petitioner's] past accomplishments 
are closely linked to the topics of his future research, any evidence discussing the national importance 
of his prior work is surely germane to his proposed endeavor." 
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. 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. It is important to note that 
the shortage of physical therapists in the United States does not render her proposed endeavor nationally 
important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are directly 
addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
To satisfy the national importance requirement, the Petitioner must demonstrate the "potential 
prospective impact" of his work. The Petitioner stated that his employer is the 1._ ___ ~~_, 
~----------- in the world," and working at the company will keep the U.S. competitive in 
the global market in terms of manufacturin~ I While the Petitioner's employer may be 
successful, it is not clear the direct influence the Petitioner will have in the national impact on the 
~-------- field as one employee of a company. Without more information regarding the 
organizational structure of the company and the Petitioner's role within that structure, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated the potential prospective impact of his work. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that he "contributes to national interests through his employment at a 
U.S. company in a highly competitive global market" and that "technological progress gained through 
I l's employment is a matter of national interest." However, no evidence is submitted to support 
these assertions. In his personal statement, the Petitioner states: "My job is to improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of our internal processes for high volumel !manufacturing 
using statistical tools, Design of Experiment, data-driven decision making and systematic problem 
solving." While Matter of Dhanasar identifies improved manufacturing processes as a possible way 
to demonstrate the national importance of a proposed endeavor, here the record lacks documentation 
showing how the Petitioner's work on internal processes at his employer rises to the level of national 
importance. 
In addition, the Petitioner provides information regarding three research projects he proposes to study 
in the future. The Petitioner provided a very brief description of these three proiects which all relate 
to the use of~-------~ While the documentation onl ] and climate change 
demonstrate the substantial merit of this proposed research, the Petitioner submitted no documentation 
specifically addressing the importance of his specific proposed endeavor. For example, in the 
statement submitted in response to the Director's RFE and which sets out his future research goals, 
the Petitioner indicates that: 
The most used materials in mos;:....t .:::..re::..:c::..:e:c:cn::..:itj...._ ___ .....1..I Pi:::cr:c.:o::...:t.:::.o.:..tYc.1:P::...:e:..:::s....:a:::::r-=d========:\ for 
I I applications an~ . and 
4 
.__ ___________ ____,applications. I will synthesize these materials by a 
hydrothermal method and form these materials with various particle sizes, so that I can 
study the dependence of thel I effect on the particle sizes. 
In support of the national importance of his work, the Petitioner submitted part of an Environmental 
Protection Agency document discussing motor vehicle I I systems and the move to 
replace! I with substitutes that have less potential to contribute to global 
warming and! I A one-page brochure on.__~~-------- from the United 
States Department of Agriculture was also submitted, as was an incomplete article from the 
Washington Post discussing the impact of climate change on a lake in New Jersey. However, none of 
these documents reference[ lor otherwise address the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed research. It is the Petitioner's burden to submit evidence that sufficiently 
corroborates its claims. Statements made without supporting documentation are of limited probative 
value and are insufficient to satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998). 
In summary, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as 
required by the first Dhanasar prong, and therefore is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We 
reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5