dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Systems Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 30, 2024 In Re: 30681087 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a systems engineer, seeks second preference immigrant classification (EB-2) as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability, as 
well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
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 although the 
Petitioner qualified for the underlying classification as an advanced degree professional and his 
endeavor has substantial merit, he had not established that his endeavor is of national importance, that 
he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish 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 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest 
waiver pet1t10ns. 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 the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish 
national importance of his endeavor. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work "as a System 
Engineer to apply my knowledge to develop and launch new systems and products" and "help 
companies from different sectors improve their internal processes and achieve their goals more 
effectively." The Petitioner also added that "[t]o start my endeavor, I will be focusing specifically on 
the food industry with the goal to develop innovative systems to optimize processes in this field." In 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner again stated that "I intend to 
perform as a System Engineer and provide my specialized services in quality, product, and operations 
engineering to impact the field through innovation in the U.S." 
Despite the Petitioner's claims, the initial filing or the RFE response did not provide persuasive details 
or corroborating documents regarding his future endeavor's innovations or its prospective impact. 
Instead, the Petitioner's statements and letters generally discussed a growing demand for system 
engineers and a talent shortage in the engineering industry, as well as past projects and technologies 
that he utilized while working for his former employers. We acknowledge that the Petitioner's 
endeavor assisting companies to create efficient and innovative systems has substantial merit; but the 
relevant question for determining the endeavor's national importance 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" and "consider its potential prospective 
impact." Id. 
We stated in Dhanasar that "[a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it 
has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. The Petitioner included two separate 
expert opinion letters as evidence of his endeavor's national importance, but the authors of these letters 
summarize the information already provided by the Petitioner's resume and statements, such as his 
educational and employment background, and statistics and outlook on relevant industry and 
occupation. For instance, the expert opinion letter from a professor of 
manufacturing engineering department at the ________ explains that the Petitioner 
specializes in "embedded systems ... in the food industry and retail sale of fractional beverages" and 
1 See Flores v. Garland. 72 F.4th 85. 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
"customized solutions - SOC (System On a Chip) programming oriented to IoT (internet of things) as 
well as "implementation ofISO 9000 certification and production development." However, the letter 
largely discusses the economic significance of the manufacturing industry and the importance of small 
businesses to the U.S. economy, instead of elaborating on the Petitioner's specific endeavor and 
innovations. 
Another expert opinion letter from an assistant professor of operations 
management at ______ claims that the Petitioner "has developed customized solutions 
including System on a chip programming for IoT devices to address challenges faced by consumers 
and clients." However, this letter also does not offer details regarding the Petitioner's innovative 
solutions but generally opines on the critical role of systems engineers in "reducing risk and managing 
complexity" and the importance of STEM professionals to the economy. The letter claims that the 
Petitioner's endeavor "supports areas of national importance, as it helps to enhance the country's 
technological capabilities and strengthen its strategic position in the global arena" but does not provide 
corroborating information to support the endeavor's broad impact rising to the level of national 
importance. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. 
Matter ofCaron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion 
or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way 
questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, the advisory opinion is of little probative value as the 
evaluator does not meaningfully address the details of the endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that his endeavor has national importance because systems 
engineering in general "inherently involves interaction with various stakeholder, partners, and 
collaborators across the field" and being a systems engineer is "inherently collaborative and impactful 
on a broader scale." While any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact the 
economy, the record does not demonstrate how working for a company or companies as an individual 
systems engineer generates such significant economic activity that rises to the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Without evidence regarding any projected 
U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the Petitioner's claims 
of his endeavor's "far-reaching implications" such as "economic growth, job creation, revenue 
increase, and societal welfare" are too attenuated to sufficiently show the proposed endeavor's impact 
at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner also contends that his endeavor "contributes to the innovation and efficiency of 
engineering processes, which have significant implications for various industries and, consequently, 
the national economy." However, the Petitioner has not offered any new evidence on appeal to 
corroborate his claims regarding his endeavor's innovations and broad implications. The Petitioner 
must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 376. The record contains emails from recruiters expressing interest in hiring the 
Petitioner and reference letters praising his handling of past projects and skills in various technologies 
relating to the systems engineering in the food industry; however, such evidence regarding the 
Petitioner's experience, skills, and abilities relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
3 
which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 890. Under Dhanasar's first prong, the issue is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner 
proposes to undertake has national importance. 
The Petitioner further claims that "my proposed endeavor aligns with the broader US government 
initiative to bolster STEM." However, simply pursuing an endeavor in a STEM field does not 
automatically demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver, especially when the Petitioner does 
not intend to advance STEM technologies and research but seeks to work as an individual systems 
engineer. Without providing corroborating documents regarding the endeavor's broad implications to 
the field, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his endeavor would extend beyond his employer and 
its clientele to the level of national importance, in the same way Dhanasar finds that a classroom 
teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally important because it will not impact the field more 
broadly. Id. at 893. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner did not establish national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and therefore, he has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified reasons for dismissal are 
dispositive of the appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding 
his eligibility under the second and third prongs of Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 
25 (1976) ( stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision 
of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as 
a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4