dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Semiconductor Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5527211 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC. 10, 2019 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a semiconductor manufacturer, seeks second preference immigrant classification for 
the Beneficiary 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 Beneficiary 
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 the Beneficiary 
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 the 
beneficiary's 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 rramework. 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 Beneficiary 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. For the 
reasons discussed below, we find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
The Petitioner indicated that it intends to continue to employ the Beneficiary as a process engineer. 5 
It states that the Beneficiary's proposed work involves designing and planning the layout for material 
processing operations including hardening, washing, laminating, etching, engraving, polishing, 
painting, and plating. In addition, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's work is aimed defining 
roadmaps and establishing flow, procedure, and equipment configurations for new technology 
processes; and developing and driving process improvements on material and equipment to meet 
quality, reliability, cost, yield, productivity and manufacturability requirements. It further contends 
that the Beneficiary's undertaking involves planning and conducting experiments to fully characterize 
the process throughout the development cycle; establishing process control systems and developing 
strategies to resolve problems; and designing, creating, and supporting processes for high volume 
manufacturing. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary's "proposed endeavor, as established in the 
original petition, is that of a process engineer at [ the Petitioner], responsible for designing and planning 
the layout for material processing operations for [the Petitioner's] microchips." It provides a letter 
from I I an engineering manager with the Petitioner, who further discusses the 
Beneficiary's proposed work relating to "dry etch process technology at [the Petitioner]" and its 
"unique contribution to the company." I I notes that this work involves "keeping up the factory 
etch equipment's 100% utilization for maximum cost benefit." He further explains that the 
Beneficiary's proposed endeavor is focused on: 
[D]eveloping nanoscale pattering, designing process flow to match etch and electrical 
performance requirements, studying plasma stability and reactivity, working on etcher 
platforms, tools design and improvements, performing daily cross sectional imaging 
and chemical analysis on wafers that undergo dry etch treatment, development of 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The record reflects that the Beneficiary received a Ph.D. in electrical engineering rrom I I University in 2016. 
5 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for the Beneficiary to have a 
job offer from a specific employer. However, we consider information about his current position to illustrate the capacity 
in which he intends to work in order to determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. 
3 
etch/deposition and ash recipes as part of complex etch recipes, development of atomic 
layer processing which include[ s] atomic layer deposition and atomic layer etching, 
and developing process etch recipes with high aspect ratio features for the next 
generation of [the Petitioner's] process technology. 
The record includes information showing that the Petitioner's technologies are found in numerous 
consumer electronics products. The Petitioner also submitted an article discussing the challenges 
facing the semiconductor industry and their consequences for the U.S. economy and national security, 
and recommendations for ensuring U.S. leadership and innovation in semiconductors. In addition, the 
appellate submission contains job descriptions for two process engineer positions with the Petitioner. 
While this documentation helps show the Beneficiary' proposed work as a process engineer has 
substantial merit, the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate this endeavor's national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's "employment has national importance by virtue of its 
national and global implications within the area of semiconductor manufacturing and its direct link to 
the substantial positive economic effects of [the Petitioner's] continued success as a company." It 
offers information about the scale of its business operations and its economic impact on the U.S. 
economy. The Petitioner contends that it "employs more than 50,000 individuals at campuses across 
the country" and that the positive economic effects of its business operations are substantial, including 
generating billions in gross revenue and federal tax payments. In addition, the Petitioner provided 
remarks from former U.S. President I I discussing the company's creation of U.S. 
manufacturing jobs. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry in which 
the individual will work or the past success of his employer; 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 proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to 
evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Beneficiary's particular undertaking. 
While the Petitioner asserts that the national importance of the Beneficiary's endeavor is evident from 
the scale of the company's overall business operations, it has not demonstrated that the economic 
implications of these operations would be attributable to the Beneficiary's process engineering 
projects to an extent that his proposed work holds national importance. For example, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Here, the 
Petitioner has not shown that the wider economic effects it is claiming as a U.S. company are 
implications of the Beneficiary's specific proposed endeavor to provide process engineering services 
for its factory etch equipment. Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information or 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Beneficiary's 
future process engineering work, it has not shown that benefits to the regional or national economy 
4 
resulting from his projects would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated 
by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Furthermore, the issue here is not the broader implications of the Petitioner's innovations in 
semiconductor manufacturing or the widespread utilization of its products by consumers, but rather 
the potential prospective impact of the Beneficiary's specific proposed work as a process engineer. 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 Beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond his employer to impact the semiconductor manufacturing industry more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Nor has the Petitioner sufficiently demonstrated that the 
particular work the Beneficiary proposes to undertake offers original innovations that contribute to 
advancements in the industry, or otherwise has broader implications for the electrical engineering 
field. Without sufficient documentary evidence of its broader impact, the Beneficiary's proposed 
process engineering work for the Petitioner does not meet the "national importance" element of the 
first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the Beneficiary's 
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 the Beneficiary's 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 
it has not established the Beneficiary 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