dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Process Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16664603 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP. 20, 2021 
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 initial 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. The Petitioner appealed the matter to us, and 
we dismissed the appeal. The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reconsider and motion 
to reopen. On motion, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and asserts that he is eligible 
for a national interest waiver. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the motions . 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and a motion to reopen 
is based on documentary evidence of new facts . The requirements of a motion to reconsider are located 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), and the requirements of a motion to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for 
the requested immigration benefit. 
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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as an engineering supervisor atl I 
inl I Texas. With respect to his proposed endeavor, 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 th industries." 
He asserted that he plans "to support the establishment of new facilities" in the .__ ______ _. 
~~------~ industries. In addition, the Petitioner noted on appeal that he was "employed 
in a full-time position with I 14 as a process engineering specialist with a dual role 
as project manager. ~--------~has specifically hired me to strengthen the technical 
1 In announcing this new framework. we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation. 22 T&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Petitioner noted that ~-----___,changed its name to I~--~ 
2 
capabilities in thei~._ __ ___.I Office with regard to~-----------------~ 
I lprojects." 5 
In our prior decision, we concluded that the Petitioner's proposed process engineering and project 
management work did not meet the "national importance" element of Dhanasar's first prong. We 
determined that the evidence was insufficient to show that his work would impact the process 
engineering field, his industry, or the environment more broadly, as opposed to being limited to his 
employer and its clientele. 6 Additionally, we determined the evidence was insufficient to show that 
the economic implications of the facilities to which the Petitioner provided project management 
services would be attributable to the Petitioner's projects to an extent that his proposed work holds 
national importance or that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
On motion, the Petitioner requests we reconsider our previous decision because he "has met every 
element of the precedent caselaw, establishing that a waiver of the job offer requirement and labor 
certification is in the national interest." We exercise de nova review of all issues of fact, law, policy, 
and discretion. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). A motion to reconsider must 
establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and that the decision 
was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .5( a)(3). A motion to reconsider must be supported by a pertinent precedent or adopted decision, 
statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
or Department of Homeland Security policy. 
Here, the Petitioner argues the evidence in the record at the time of decision is sufficient to satisfy the 
requirements in Dhanasar. We disagree. Our previous decision cited Dhanasar and conducted an 
analysis of the relevant evidence in the record at the time of the decision finding that the Petitioner did 
not satisfy the requirements to qualify under Dhanasar' s first prong. While the Petitioner reiterates 
the evidence in the record as well as his arguments on appeal, he does not specifically indicate how 
our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy or that the decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of decision. We will therefore dismiss 
his motion to reconsider the matter. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
On motion, the Petitioner submits additional evidence including a new statement discussing his most 
recentl I project that is "centered on meeting the Eurol I specifications and meeting Global 
expectations for reduction of Green House as emissions." The Petitioner ar ues that this project will 
make to meet the needs 
5 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. 
6 Similarly, 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. 
3 
of the country." He also states that I I has recommended the use of a I~----~ 
extraction process" that is licensed byL I, a US based company and also recommended a 
"second new technology for treatment oil I stocks for the production of Euro I I 
~-__,!which "is licensed by an American-based company -I t and "has limited a lications 
in the US market." The Petitioner argues getting these newer technologies installed in "will 
~ with !gaining 
1
acceptance of the technologies in the US" and "will improve the ability of 
L__J and to sell additional licenses in the US and worldwide market." In support of his 
statement, the Petitioner submits a scope of work document fo~ I inl I 
The document indicates will "identify alternatives, prioritize them and define the best 
configuration in th9 I to produce~ ____________ __,and to 
adjust other technical spec1ficat10ns ... " However, the scope of work document indicates that "Wood 
will prepare a licensor selection matrix for equitable grading of the licensors selected" but does not 
list any specific technologies and does not indicate the Petitioner would have decision-making 
authority over the selection of technologies. This document does not support the Petitioner's assertion 
that he has recommended new technologies licensed by US based companies or that these technologies 
will be licensed to such an extent that it would impact the process engineering field, his industry, or 
the environment more broadly, or that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. 
In addition, the Petitioner submits a proposal froml I foJ I Production 
Facility to illustrate the impact of his work all across the United States. The proposal indicates! I D would provide "management support and moni_,._._ _ __,_"'"'ontractor activities throughout 
completion of detailed engineering." The proposal ' indicates "[ o ]ur complete range 
of services can be executed using a larger team of,_____, people with minimal Owner personnel, or 
with a core team of key individuals working in an integrated team with D." The proposal includes 
resumes from personnel already employed by I I that would be available for staffing this 
project but does not indicate the project would have the potential to hire U.S. workers to such an extent 
as to be of national importance. Additionally, this proposal does not support the Petitioner's assertion 
that his work would impact the process engineering field, his industry, or the environment more 
broadly, as opposed to being limited to his employer and its clientele. 
The Petitioner also submits al ~proposal to for!~-------~ 
tol ldated March 2018, and a I : I Project Management Plan prepared by and 
approved by the Petitioner. These documents indicat~ I requested 1 I 
to perform Basic Desi n services for a lant to be built in an existing I 
plant located in China. ~---~plans to capitalize on the success of 
their~---~process, and prove its technology with an upstream~-----~unit before 
building multiple trains." While these documents indicate the Petitioner led the project management 
portion of this project, the evidence does not indicate that any of the Petitioner's work would impact 
the process engineering field, his industry, or the environment more broadly, as opposed to being 
limited to his employer and its clientele or how this work would be nationally important to the United 
States. 
Finally, the Petitioner submits an article detailing a manufacturing boom in the United States that is 
expected to grow, in part, due to cheap and plentifoll I This article indicates there is an 
expectation for a wave o~ I plant openings in 2017 and 2018. The article mentions I I 
4 
;:::=.=~I a=nn.:::..:;ounced al I spending program "to expand its manufacturing capacity along the 
.....,....-,---,-,--==-~t and a wave of ne@..., ____ ____.Jplant openings "could generate 70,000 to 80,000 direct 
jobs." The article does not mention any projects being worked on or influenced by the Petitioner and 
does not otherwise indicate the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. 
While the Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor involves proposing new technologies and 
opening new facilities both inside and outside the U.S., this information does not establish that his work 
withl I offers broader implications for the process engineering and project management field or 
oil and gas industry more broadly rather than mainly affecting his employer and its own clientele. As the 
Petitioner has not presented new facts or evidence to establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor, he has not met Dhanasar' s first prong. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation provided in support of the combined motion to reconsider and reopen does not 
overcome the grounds underlying our previous decision. As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that he has not established he is eligible for or 
otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
5