dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Radio Frequency Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 06, 2024 In Re: 31569879 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a radio frequency engineer, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner had not 
established that eligibility for a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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, 1 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In the initial submission, the Petitioner explained she intended to work as a radio frequency engineer. 
Responding to the request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner indicated she would establish her own 
wireless network design consulting firm inl IMassachusetts. She holds a master's degree in 
wireless devices and communication facilities and has 14 years of experience in the wireless 
engineering and communication field. 
The first prong, 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, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 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 Director determined, and we agree, that the Petitioner 
established the substantial merit, but not the national importance, of the proposed endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in concluding she made material changes to 
the proposed endeavor in response to the RFE. We agree with the Director's analysis of this issue. 
Initially, the Petitioner proposed working as a radio frequency engineer and did not indicate any 
intention to own and operate a business. She contends on appeal that progressing to becoming an 
entrepreneur is a logical professional trajectory. However, the matter on appeal does not concern the 
logical progression of the Petitioner's career trajectory, the issue is whether the endeavor materially 
changed from the time of submission to the RFE. Owning a business and working as an engineer are 
two different undertakings even when they are in the same engineering field. The knowledge and 
skills required to manage and operate a business are different from the skills an employee within a 
company would need, though both require knowledge of radio frequency engineering. A petitioner 
may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make a deficient 
petition conform to USCIS requirements. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1988). Accordingly, we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of 
opening, owning, and operating her own wireless network design company and will only address her 
initial proposed endeavor of providing radio engineering. 
The Petitioner also maintains the Director failed to give due weight to the evidence submitted 
regarding the national importance of the proposed endeavor. In reviewing the entirety of the record, 
the Petitioner has not established that the impact of the proposed endeavor has national importance. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, Third and D.C. Circuit Courts in 
concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
The Petitioner contends that the expert opinion letter from Dr. Chairman of 
the Manufacturing Engineering Department atl lindicates that the Petitioner's 
endeavor has national importance. Dr. I I explains that the Petitioner is "a respected leader 
among her contemporaries and within the engineering sector" and that "in an era where connectivity 
and wireless technology are at the forefront of daily life and business operations, the criticality of 
efficient, reliable, and innovative telecommunications infrastructure cannot be overstated." While the 
letter opines on the Petitioner's expertise and potential benefits her skills bring to the industry, the 
letter does not explain how they have broader implications for our country. Dr. I I details the 
Petitioner's experience and reiterates the arguments pertaining to the importance of the 
telecommunications and mobile technology in general without showing the wider effect in the field of 
the Petitioner's particular proposed endeavor. 
In the initial filing, the Petitioner emphasizes the importance of the fact that the proposed endeavor 
falls within a STEM (science, technology, engineering, or mathematics) profession. With respect to 
the first prong, as in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance. 2 Many proposed endeavors that aim to advance STEM 
technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, not only have substantial merit 
in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, but also have sufficiently broad potential 
implications to demonstrate national importance. 3 The Petitioner has not indicated how her expertise 
in engineering communications through radio waves, with wireless devices, radios or mobile phones 
advances STEM technologies and research or has broad implications rather than providing her limited 
professional services by working within a STEM profession. 
Moreover, the Petitioner stresses her "expertise" and her "deep knowledge in the field of radio 
engineering." However, the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of 
the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national 
importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
Although the Petitioner presents the importance of various national and government initiatives in the 
field of radio frequency engineering, such as "Wireless Tower Construction Industry in the US" and 
"Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Delivering Results 100 Days into Infrastructure 
Implementation," the matter here is not whether these initiatives, as well as the topics of radio 
engineering or similarly related subjects are nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of working as a radio 
frequency engineer. Likewise, evidence of the industry growth of wireless towers, and broadband 
connections in the next five years covers a range of topics in the field rather than establishing the 
national importance of her particular professional services. 4 
2 See generally 5 USCTS Policy Manual D.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
3 Id. 
4 The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the 
national importance part. 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, and 
therefore we conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4