dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Transportation Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24215680 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 06, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a civil and mechanical engineer specializing in transportation issues, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement would be in the national interest. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 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, 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: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature) . 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner's academic background includes his undergraduate and graduate degrees, as well as 
coursework in environmental, mechanical and electronics engineering. He states that he has served as 
a technical specialist at I I university since 2016. As a technical specialist, the Petitioner 
states that he develops exams and distributes grades for civil, material and surveying engineering 
students, supervises the daily operations of the laboratory, reviews data analysis, and advises students 
on course scheduling and academic planning. 
The Petitioner also states that he has worked on research projects with the university and for the public 
transportation system inl I County, Texas (which includes! I. In his personal statement 
he lists his academic projects, all completed during his graduate studies, as analyzing travel demand 
in the I I area, studying pedestrian and bikeway connectivity inl I water and wastewater 
treatment and testing, and conducting an environmental assessment of a university building project in 
I I In a personal statement, the Petitioner states that his ""field of endeavor' over the next 
several years is to continue working in the civil and mechanical engineering [field], specifically 
concerning transportation issues such as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and other related 
activities." 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of his education and experience, a personal 
statement describing his proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a national interest waiver, 
recommendation letters, and evidence of his past research. 
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish his eligibility for the national interest 
waiver. The Director concluded that the Petitioner established that the proposed endeavor had 
substantial merit. However, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established that the 
proposed endeavor was of national importance, that he was well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of 
a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. 
In the RFE, the Director noted that the record lacked evidence to corroborate the Petitioner's claim 
that his proposed endeavor had broad implications on the field of transportation. He also noted that, 
although the record included evidence attesting to the Petitioner's accomplishments, it lacked evidence 
2 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds a master of science degree in transportation, planning and management 
issued by !University in 2015. The Petitioner also earned a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering 
technology froml University in 2012. 
2 
of the Petitioner's track record, financial support, plans and progress for driving the endeavor forward, 
and projections of future work in the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes an updated personal statement, additional 
recommendation letters, and descriptions of three requests for grant funding submitted by the 
Petitioner and his colleagues. In his updated personal statement, the Petitioner further describes his 
proposed endeavor as follows: 
I will be working on street bus operation management inl I in the coming year, 
analyzing the various causes of poor service reliability ... Another project I will be 
looking into is the pedestrian and bicycle safety in bus/[bus lane] corridors ... These 
proposed activities will contribute to the improvement of the overall functionality of 
the United States' transportation system translating to improved livability in American 
communities ... 
The Petitioner also submits summaries of three "ongoing research projects," which include bike and 
pedestrian safety, access to vehicle bridges, and service reliability of public transit. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that his proposed endeavor had national importance, that he is well positioned to advance 
her proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the 
requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits copies of the users Policy Manual and a policy alert regarding 
national interest waivers for Science Engineering Technology and Mathematics (STEM) fields, as well 
as copies ofrelevant case law and an unpublished non-precedent AAO decision. The Petitioner asserts 
that the Director did not properly apply users policy and contends he made legal and factual errors, 
including in failing to consider evidence submitted in response to the RFE as support for his eligibility 
for a national interest waiver at the time of filing. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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 of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
As noted above, the Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in the field of 
transportation and engineering has substantial merit. However, he determined that the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate how his proposed endeavor will broadly impact the field of transportation and 
engineering to establish national importance. He noted that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his 
academic duties would extend beyond the university to impact the field more broadly, and that the 
record lacked documentary evidence of the projects described in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
in transportation research. The Director noted that the evidence submitted in response to the RFE, 
including the grant funding and descriptions of ongoing projects, did not support the Petitioner's 
3 
eligibility for a national interest waiver at the time of filing, as the description of the proposals is dated 
"2020-2021" and the grant announcement is dated 2021, after the petition's filing in October 2019.3 
He therefore determined that the evidence was not probative in demonstrating that the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor has national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director should have given consideration to the evidence 
submitted in response to the RFE, even if it post-dated the filing date. He further asserts that the 
Director arbitrarily applied a higher standard of evidence in requiring that he establish national 
importance by demonstrating that his proposed endeavor will have national implications. 
In attempt to support a finding of national importance, the Petitioner points to the USCIS Policy 
Manual which states that "USCIS recognizes the importance of progress in STEM fields and the 
essential role of persons with advanced STEM degrees in fostering this progress." Specifically, the 
Petitioner references 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5, noting that an indicator of STEM areas importance to the United 
States is inclusion in the President's annual research and development priorities. He states that 
"success in Transportation Engineering & Planning, especially in low-income areas is EXACTLY the 
type of work [the President] is supporting (emphasis in original)." 
Although we agree that STEM fields are important and may be the subject of national initiatives, we 
conclude that this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific 
proposed endeavor. The record contains insufficient information or evidence regarding the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor to show broad potential implications demonstrating national 
importance. 
The three items described in the fonding request submitted by the Petitioner and two other colleagues 
include summer graduate research, student participation in professional conferences, and summer 
undergraduate enhancement. None of the descriptions in the fonding request specifically identifies 
transportation planning and management as a component of the project. These items appear to relate 
only to the Petitioner's responsibilities as a technical specialist at the university, including teaching 
and academic advisement. The Petitioner does not explain how this evidence demonstrates the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor related to transportation. In fact, on appeal the Petitioner 
states that he "never argued that his classroom 'academic duties' are the reason why his NIW should 
be approved." Therefore, we conclude that the evidence of the grant fonding related to his position 
with the university does not demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor. 
In his research proposal summaries, the Petitioner identifies his ongoing research projects as studies 
on bike and pedestrian safety in bus rapid transit corridors, on the design and implementation of access 
to vehicle bridges, and on improving service reliability of public transit systems. The summaries 
describe the problem to be studied, the objective of the research, the information to be gathered, and 
the proposed methodology for each project. However, the summaries do not discuss the intended use 
of the study results, including publication or presentation of the work throughout the field. Although 
3 A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 l&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
4 
the proposed methodology includes "survey of agencies" and "major technology companies," the 
specific agencies and companies are not identified in the summaries or in other supporting evidence. 
Without sufficient detail, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to the level 
of national importance. It is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 
806 (AAO 2012). 
When determining national importance, the relevant question 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." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Much of the 
Petitioner's evidence relates to his past research and academic positions, rather than his specific 
proposed endeavor. Although the Petitioner states on appeal that his RFE response included "grant 
applications with the Transportation Research Board," and two of the recommendation letters mention 
the Petitioner's grant proposals to the Transportation Research Board, no documentary evidence of 
these proposals was submitted. 4 The Petitioner also states on appeal that, in addition to "probative 
expert letters," he "provided other evidence discussing the immense significance of U.S. advances in 
this field." However, the Petitioner does not identify the specific evidence in the record that addresses 
the potential impact of his specific proposed endeavor on U.S. advancement in the field of 
transportation and engineering. The record does not include articles, reports or other evidence to 
support the claimed potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Even 
considering the descriptions of the Petitioner's ongoing projects and letters of recommendation 
collectively and in the totality of circumstances, we still conclude that they do not support a finding 
that his specific proposed endeavor has national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director arbitrarily applied a higher standard of evidence in requiring 
that he establish national importance by demonstrating that his proposed endeavor will have national 
implications. However, the Petitioner does not identify specifically where in the Director's decision 
a higher standard was applied. Upon review, we conclude that the Director does not state or impose 
a higher standard of evidence. 
Upon review of the record, we conclude that the evidence does not demonstrate the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. To establish national importance, the Petitioner 
must demonstrate the proposed endeavor's impact. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]n undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. at 889. 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, as set 
forth above, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish what the broader 
implications of his work would be, or that his work would impact his field more broadly to demonstrate 
national importance. 
4 Although the record includes the Petitioner's research proposal summaries, none of the summaries state that a funding 
request was made to or approved by the Transportation Research Board and the record does not include documentary 
evidence to supp011 this claim. 
5 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further 
discussion of the balancing factors under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful 
purpose. 5 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 Even ifwe had addressed the remaining issues, we still would have dismissed this appeal. As noted above. the Director 
concluded that, although the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not establish its national 
importance, that he was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or 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. On appeal, the Petitioner 
references the same supporting evidence submitted with the original petition and RFE response and does not provide any 
new evidence. The Director fully addressed the previously submitted evidence and explained how it was deficient in 
establishing that the Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver. The Petitioner's assertions on appeal do not 
establish that he meets all of the three Dhanasar prongs. 
6