dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Transportation Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6506409 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 7, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability , National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , a transportation engineering researcher , 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 she 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 a brief asserting that she 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 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 T&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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 Petitioner received a Master of Science degree in transportation engineering froml I 
University I I in May 2012. Accordingly, the Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 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 workrg as i graduate research assistant in the Department of 
Transportation,and...,Urban Infrastructure at After completing her Ph.D. program in civil 
engineering at L_J the Petitioner stated that she plans "to work as a postdoctoral researcher in the 
field of civil and transportation engineering." 4 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicated that she intends to continue her research aimed at traffic signal systems and 
connected vehicle technologies. She explained that her proposed research involves 'I I 
In addition, the Petitioner asserted she plans to undertake research relating to "wireless connected 
vehicle to vehicle technology." The Petitioner stated that her proposed research will help reduce traffic 
accidents, lessen greenhouse gas emissions, and improve transportation mobility. The record therefore 
supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
To satisfy the national importance requirement, the Petitioner must demonstrate the "potential 
prospective impact" of her work. The record includes a letter of supP,ort froml I 
professor and director of the University Transportation Center at I I discussing the potential 
benefits of Petitioner's proposed research and how it stands to advance connected vehicle 
development. He stated that the Petitioner's undertaking supports "a range of safety and mobility 
applications of interest to the public and private sectors." In addition, the Petitioner offered a letter 
from I I a program manager and traffic operations specialist at I I 
asserting that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor contributes "toward the development of new 
technology that can make our transportation system safer and more efficient." The record also contains 
documentation indicating that the benefit of the Petitioner's proposed research has broader 
implications, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through engineering conferences. As 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for her to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we will consider information about her current and prospective positions to illustrate the 
capacity in which she intends to work in order to determine whether her proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 
3 
the Petitioner has documented both the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed 
research, we agree with the Director that she meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 5 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. 6 The record includes 
documentation of the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, academic credentials, Institute of Transportation 
En ineers membershi , her research aper entitled '--------------------~ 
and conference resentations. She also offered a certificate '----------------.----------~-, indicating that she received a•~-----------' P~ogram tchievement Award" (2011) and 
reference letters discussing her graduate research activities a For the reasons discussed below, 
the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her 
proposed research under Dhanasar's second prong. 
The Petitioner contends that her academic qualifications, research projects, and work experience 
indicate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. In letters supporting the 
petition, several of the Petitioner's coll ea ues discussed her prior transportation engineering research 
projects. 7 For example.__--r----,.... ___ _, professor and chair of the Department of Transportation 
and Urban Infrastructure at stated: "In her master's degree thesis, [the Petitioner] successfully 
researched and demonstrated the operational benefits and safety implications of I I 
I ltechnology."I !farther asserted that the Petitioner "has developed a promising concept 
in providing trainings and facilitating technology sharing to support the emerging market of 
autonomous/connected vehicles." 
In addition, I I indicated that the Petitioner "designed a business plan/model for the 
establishment of an innovative research and training center for connected vehicle-to-vehicle and to­
infrastructure research in thel I area," but the record does not show that her business 
plan/model has generated positive interest among relevant parties, has been implemented in the 
I I area or any other region, or otherwise reflects a record of success in transportation 
engineering research. With respect to the Petitioner's j I Program 
Achievement Award,"! I noted that she was anl._ _____________ ___,bnd 
Universities Fellow fonded by the U.S. Department of Transportation "to conduct research and earn a 
degree in a transportation-related field." The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that receiving 
this award or fellowship represents a record of success in her field or is otherwise an indication that she 
is well positioned to advance her proposed! I systems and connected vehicle research. 
5 With respect to the Petitioner's proposed teaching duties relating to college engineering courses, while this work has 
substantial merit, the record does not establish that her instructional work would impact the field of transportation 
engineering or the U.S. transportation industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to her students. Accordingly, 
without sufficient documentary evidence of their broader impact, the Petitioner's proposed teaching activities do not meet 
the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar rramework. Similarly, 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. 
6 As previously noted, her proposed teaching duties do not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar rramework. Because the 
Petitioner's proposed transportation engineering research has broader implications for the field (unlike her work as an 
instructor), our analysis under this prong will focus on whether she is well positioned to advance her proposed research 
relating tol I systems and connected vehicle technologies. 
7 We discuss only a sampling of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
Furthermore,.__ ________ _. an adjunct instructor of chemical engineering atl 
.__ _ _.I University, contended that the Petitioner is "at the cutting edge of the field of,....I =========t 
devices." He also stated that he "believe[s] that many local and state governmental bodies will be 
interested in implementing her ideas into practice," but the record does not include corroborating 
evidence from such bodies indicating that the Petitioner's.__ ________ _. work stands to be 
utilized anywhere in the United States. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, authored, and presented research during 
her graduate studies. While we recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge 
in some way in order to be accepted for publication, presentation, fonding, or academic credit, not 
every individual who has performed original research will be found to be well positioned to advance 
her proposed endeavor. Rather, we examine the factors set forth in Dhanasar to determine whether, 
for instance, the individual's progress towards achieving the goals of the proposed research, record of 
success in similar efforts, or generation of interest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. 
at 890. The Petitioner, however, has not shown that her published and presented work has served as 
an impetus for progress in the transportation engineering field, that it has affected local or regional 
transportation systems, or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the engineering 
community. Nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that her work constitutes a record of success 
or progress in advancing research aimed at traffic signal systems and connected vehicle technologies. 
As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her 
proposed research endeavor, she has not established that she satisfies the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
As explained above, 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. Here, the Petitioner claims that she is eligible for a waiver due to her education, research 
skills and accomplishments, and the importance of her field. However, as the Petitioner has not 
established that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor as required by the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver and farther 
discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that she has not established she 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