remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 28, 2025 In Re: 37095903 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an advanced degree professional, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement attached to this classification. 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 demonstrate that he merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer 
requirement 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in 
this matter de nova. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 
review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision 
consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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 l&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: 
• 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. 
Id. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for classification as an advanced degree 
professional and that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, the Director concluded 
that the Petitioner did not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance or that waiving 
the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake and its "potential prospective impact." Id. at 889. The 
endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, 
science, technology, culture, health, or education. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by misinterpreting the Dhanasar framework 
by stating that Dhanasar requires petitioners to demonstrate that their proposed endeavor has national 
or global implications; must impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance; or have impact that would rise to the level of national importance - when in actuality, 
Dhanasar provides that an undertaking may be demonstrated by the aforementioned metrics. The 
Petitioner further asserts that the Director erred by not addressing his eligibility under prongs two and 
three of the Dhanasar framework. 
As noted by the Petitioner, in Dhanasar we stated 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. at 890. 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. Further, in determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. The term "endeavor" is more specific 
than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation 
normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that 
occupation. For example, while engineering is an occupation, the explanation of the proposed 
endeavor should describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of engineering in which the 
person will work, rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of an engineer. 2 
Although the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of 
national importance, the Director did not apply any factors to the Petitioner's evidence or explain why 
the evidence was insufficient to establish eligibility under this prong. Specifically, the Director stated 
that "the petitioner provided a letter that indicates he intends to continue working as an engineer in the 
United States and use his expertise and knowledge to generate technological advances in the field of 
mechanical engineering in the oil and gas sector" but "the petitioner must show that the potential 
prospective impact of his proposed endeavor" would have anational impact on the oi I and gas industry 
in the United States." The Director immediately followed this with excerpts from Dhanasar and several 
conclusions, including: "[T]here is no evidence to prove that he will potentially impact the oil and gas 
2 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(0)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 
industry at a national level;" "[T]here is no evidence in the record to explain and demonstrate how the 
petitioner's proposed endeavor will extend beyond the organization and its clients to impact the 
industry more broadly;" and "The evidence submitted does not support the petitioner's statements 
that the proposed endeavor would reach the level of 'substantive positive economic effects' 
contemplated by Dhanasar." 
In the present case, the Director did not refer to any of the evidence submitted by the Petitioner or explain 
how the evidence in the record led to the determination that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
proposed endeavor is of national importance. However, the Director must explain in writing the specific 
reasons for the decision. C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i).3 The Director should also analyze the evidence and 
conclude whether the Petitioner's endeavor has national importance. The Director should focus on what 
the Petitioner will be doing rather than the specific occupation, and should keep in mind that it is the 
national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor that must be shown. An endeavor 
having significant potential on the broader implications for a field generally may rise to the level of having 
national importance for the purpose of establishing eligibility for anational interest waiver. The Director 
should review the record to determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated his proposed endeavor has 
significant potential on the broader impact in the engineering field rather than in the oil and gas industry 
in the United States. 
B. Remaining Eligibility Requirements 
Because the Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requisite first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework, the Director declined to address the Petitioner's eligibility under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. On remand, the Director should address all the Petitioner's 
arguments and evidence for the second and third prongs and explain the relative decisional weight 
given to each balancing factor. 
111. CONCLUSION 
For the above reasons, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further 
consideration. On remand, the Director should review and fully analyze the entire record in 
considering whether the Petitioner has established eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. If 
appropriate, on remand the Director may issue a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny. 
The Director must then issue a new decision, addressing all the relevant evidence to decide the merits 
of the Petitioner's claim of eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of anew 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3 See also Matter of M-P-, 20 l&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a 
motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
3