dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Semiconductor Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7351308 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 30, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a semiconductor research 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, 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 employed as a senior engineering manager for ._I-~----" 
a semiconductor manufacturer, in South Korea. 5 Regarding the Petitioner's claim of eligibility under 
Dhanasar's first prong, he indicated that he plans to continue his work involving "digital hardware 
engineering, semiconductor memory engineering, and patent engineering." He asserted that this work 
is aimed at development ofl , , #or mobile device,~ 
.__ _____ ~_.,...for notebook, I ... I and i::=Jwith high 
performance. The Petitioner farther stated: "My first preferred job in U.S. is research engineering 
position in Intel. . . . Second preferred job is research engineering position in SanDisk which had 
contacted with me [sic] to recruit. . . . I am also interested in working at a university or national 
institute in addition to corporations." 
The Petitioner also discussed the value and prevalence of digital hardware engineering, semiconductor 
memory engineering, and patent engineering. For example, he explained that "[d]igital hardware 
engineering creates digital components for sending, receiving and processing digital information." 
With respect to semiconductor memory engineering, the Petitioner noted the "ever-increasing demand 
for higher-capacity semiconductor memory" and the "necessity to consider a fundamentally disparate 
approach to enhance semiconductor memory technology." Furthermore, regarding patent engineering, 
he asserted that "[p ]atents are a vital asset in the modem business world" because they deter "other 
market players from simply copying innovative features without making comparable investments in 
research and development." 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) advising the Petitioner of the Dhanasar framework. 
The RFE in part asked the Petitioner to provide "a detailed description of the proposed endeavor and 
why it is of national importance," including supporting evidence demonstrating "the endeavor's 
potential prospective impact." In response, the Petitioner asserted: "As a research engineer/manager, 
my first preferred job in U.S. is research engineering position in multinational corporation such as 
Intel, Micron and SanDisk. . . . I am also willing to apply [ for a] researcher or research professor 
position, not teaching position, at university and national research institute as second preferred job." 6 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Petitioner received a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from University ofl I in 
August 2005. 
5 He previously worked as a senior research engineer wit~ I from September 2005 until August 2014. 
6 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 
3 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that while the Petitioner's proposed work as a research 
engineer or research professor had substantial merit, he did not offer "sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance." Additionally, the Director indicated that the Petitioner had not established that his 
proposed "work on semiconductor research, design, and development" stands to have "implications 
beyond his prospective employer or academic institution." 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. 
In the appeal brief: the Petitioner maintains that his discussion relating to the value and prevalence of 
digital hardware engineering, semiconductor memory engineering, and patent engineering is sufficient 
to demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor. He farther contends that he has 
offered "a credible and realistic plan to pursue his proposed endeavor with an identified position in 
the United States." 
Regarding the Petitioner's assertion that he intends to pursue a research engineering position with a 
U.S. multinational corporation such as Intel, Micron and SanDisk, the record does not include 
documentation of his communications with these companies or their interest in hiring him. Nor is 
there supporting evidence indicating the type of engineering research he will undertake on their behalf 
Likewise, with respect to the Petitioner obtaining a research position at a university or national 
research institute, the record does not contain documentation from any such U.S. institutions 
identifying the specific engineering research projects he will pursue on their behalf. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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 
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. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. Although the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable digital design and semiconductor 
memory engineering services for his future U.S. employer, he has not offered sufficient information 
and evidence to demonstrate 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, we find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to 
a specific employer. However. we will consider information about his prospective positions 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. 
4 
sufficiently extend beyond his future U.S. employer and its operations to impact his field or the U.S. 
semiconductor industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
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 documentation regarding any projected U.S. economic impact 
or job creation attributable to his specific work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional 
or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's activities would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects," so as to demonstrate their national importance under the first prong of Dhanasar. Id. 
at 890. 
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 find 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