remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22642882 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 24, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer researching the mechanics of biopolymer-based materials and 
investigating the mechanics of plant cell walls, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or of exceptional ability, Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the 
job offer requirement that is attached to this employment based second preference (EB-2) 
classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. See 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 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 they had not 
established that 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. 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 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 withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petition 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. 
Whilst 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). Dhanasar states that users may as a matter of discretion 
grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the labor certification, to a petitioner 
classified in the EB-2 category if they demonstrate that (1) the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance, (2) the noncitizen 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 the 
noncitizen 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 noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen 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, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. users may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petition to obtain a labor certification; whether, in light of the nature of the 
noncitizen's qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen 
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 noncitizen's 
contributions; and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent 
to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an an advanced 
degree. The Petitioner earned a Ph.D. in engineering science and mechanics from the I 
University. The sole 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. 
As stated above, once the Petitioner has established their categorical eligibility for the EB-2 immigrant 
category based on having earned an advanced degree or establishing that they are a noncitizen of 
exceptional ability, the Director will evaluate the national interest in waiving the requirement of a job 
offer and thus a labor certification under the three prongs of the analytical framework we first 
discussed in Dhanasar. 
2 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
We conclude that a remand is warranted in this case because the Director's decision is insufficient for 
review. The Director does not appear to have addressed or analyzed whether the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor is of substantial merit and national importance. Our exercise of discretion to waive the 
requirement of a job offer, and therefore a labor certification, requires adherence to all three of the 
Dhanasar framework's prongs. 
In Dhanasar we focused the first prong of our analysis on the potential impact of a Petitioner's specific 
proposed endeavor to consider its substantial merit and national importance. The substantial merit of 
an endeavor can be shown in any number of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, 
technology, culture, health, education, arts, or the social sciences. The furtherance of human 
knowledge, potential economic impact on, and economic benefits for the United States can also be 
evaluated to determine the substantial merit of a proposed endeavor. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated on their ETA 750 Part B that they were a postdoctoral scholar 
at the I I University conducting research in mechanical engineering focusing on 
mechanics of biopolymer-based materials and investigating the mechanics of the plant cell wall. The 
Petitioner intends to continue this research at the I I University indefinitely, 
contingent on the lab's continued receipt of research funding. The Petitioner attested that their 
proposed research endeavor's focus on the mechanical behaviors and properties of soft materials is of 
substantial merit and has national importance due to the potential broader implications to advance 
development of advanced technologies such as bio-inspired multifunctional materials and drug­
delivery strategies for disease therapy. 
Dhanasar also requires us to consider the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor to 
determine its national importance. The national importance of an endeavor is rooted in its potential 
impact and whether it has national or global implications within the field of endeavor. The broader 
implications, national and/or international, can inform us of the proposed endeavor's national 
importance. That is not to say that the implications are viewed solely through a geographical lens. 
Broader implications can reach beyond a particular proposed endeavor's geographical locus and focus. 
The relevant inquiry is whether the broader implications apply beyond just narrowly conferring the 
proposed endeavor's benefit. The Director may want to consider the broader implications of the 
Petitioner's soft materials research for the development of advanced technologies such as bio-inspired 
materials and drug delivery systems. They may evaluate whether the benefits identified by the writers 
of recommendation letters present in the record highlight any broader implications that make medical 
advances in the delivery of drugs such as chemotherapy for cancer patients or promise substantial 
economic effects on plastic as a segment of municipal solid waste. For example, the Director may 
review the letter of _____ the Petitioner's advisor atl I 
School of Engineering during their post-doctoral fellowship, to determine whether the understanding 
of bacterial biofilms' adhesion has broad implications on biomaterial innovation such that it rises to 
the level of national importance. Andi I assistant professor in the Department of Mechanical 
Engineering at the University I I states that he has cited the Petitioner's work working 
with nanoparticles undergoing endocytosis. Endocytosis is the action of taking in matter by a living 
cell. Nanoparticles are any ultrafine particle of matter. The Director may want to examine how, as 
3 
stated by I I the unique characteristics of nanoparticles broadly implicate national 
importance because of their value for new drug delivery options in cancer patients. 
Critical and emerging STEM technologies, as identified in governmental, academic, and other 
authoritative and instructive sources can be potential fields of substantial merit with broader 
implications rising to national importance. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), 
https ://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part- f-chapter-5. Factors that the Director can 
evaluate to determine the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's substantial merit may include the potential 
for the endeavor to create a significant economic impact in development of advance technologies such 
as bio-inspired materials and drug delivery therapies, its furtherance of human knowledge in the 
mechanics of soft materials, and its potential to create a significant cultural impact. 
Accordingly, we hereby withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter so that the Director 
may conduct a first-line analysis of the proposed endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
Our analysis now turns to the Petitioner's eligibility under the second prong. As stated above, the second 
prong shifts the focus from a petitioner's proposed endeavor to the petitioner or individual themselves 
and how well positioned they are to advance their proposed endeavor. 
We disagree with the Director's phraseology relating to a demonstration that the Petitioner's research 
work "transcend in the field of endeavor" to establish eligibility under the second prong of Dhanasar. 
Our analysis of Dhanasar's second prong is multi-factorial. "Transcendence" is not contained in the 
statute, is not defined in the regulations, nor is it in the Dhanasar analytical framework. Accordingly, 
we withdraw the Director's decision as to the second prong of Dhanasar with instructions to consider 
the following factors and any other relevant factors in evaluating whether the Petitioner is well 
positioned to advance their proposed endeavor: 
• A petitioner's education, skill, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar efforts; 
• A petitioner's model or plan for future activities related to the proposed endeavor that the 
individual developed, or played a significant role in developing; 
• Any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and 
• The interest or support garnered by the individual from potential customers, users, investor, or 
other relevant entities or persons. 
On remand, the Director should conduct an individualized consideration of the multifactorial analysis 
under Dhanasar 's second prong to determine how well positioned the Petitioner is to advance their 
proposed endeavor. The Petitioner identifies their Ph.D. in engineering science and mathematics as 
one in a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) field. The Director should consider 
the Petitioner's attainment of a Ph.D. from the I !University in the STEM field of 
engineering science and mechanics to evaluate whether it is an especially positive factor in 
consideration with the other factors for purposes of assessing whether the Petitioner is well-placed to 
advanced their proposed endeavor keeping in mind that a degree in and of itself is not a basis to 
determine that a person is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor. Id. 
4 
As stated above, the Petitioner stated on their ETA 750 Part B that they were a postdoctoral scholar at 
the University conducting research in mechanical engineering focusing on 
mechanics of biopolymer-based materials and investigating the mechanics of the plant cell wall and 
that they intended to continue this research at the University indefinitely in the 
future contingent on continued research funding. The Director should consider whether the 
Petitioner's proposed indefinite position contingent on the lab's receipt of funding situates them well 
to advance their proposed endeavor. 
The testimony of the writers regarding the interest in the Petitioner's work in combination with other 
objective evidence of government, industry or other interest in the work might show that the Petitioner 
is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. As stated above I I highlighted 
the Petitioner's work with amyloids and bacterial biofilm matrices which leads to the development of 
bio-inspired materials. I !discussed the Petitioner's work with nanoparticles of unknown 
origin undergoing endocytosis as an addition to the knowledge for drug delivery systems. In their 
RFE response, the Petitioner submitted two additional letters. The letter ofl I professor in the 
Department of Engineering Mechanics at I !University, discussed the writer's direct reference 
of the Petitioner's investigation on the mechanics ofred blood cells and how they are a critical step in 
the development of new therapies for sickle-cell anemia. The letter of I I professor 
for theoretical biophysics atl I University also described in detail the Petitioner's work with 
red and white blood cells how this identifies new targets for antimalarial therapies. The Director 
should consider the testimony from the writers of letters of recommendation in the record to see if they 
tend to show the Petitioner's progress towards achieving their proposed endeavor such that they have 
developed a record of success and are well-positioned to advance it. 
The Director can evaluate the progress of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor by evaluating evidence 
of funding the Petitioner has received or whether they have demonstrated that they have a leading, 
critical, or indispensable role in their endeavor. Evidence such as grant or funding awards with details 
of the amount and terms of the grant or funding aware are examples that can show progress as well as 
interest. Acknowledgments for funding included by the Petitioner's co-authors in their joint 
publications do not provide the details of the amount and terms of the grant or if Petitioner is the 
named grantee or awardee. 
The Director can also weigh and consider the evidence the Petitioner submitted of their peer review 
activity to determine whether it is significant to demonstrate the Petitioner's record of success in their 
field or is otherwise well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner heavily emphasized their publication and citation history. The Petitioner's record of 
publication and citation history can be objective documentary evidence a petitioner's positioning for 
advancement of their proposed endeavor in conjunction with letters of recommendation. The Director 
may want to evaluate the total number of citations as well as identifying how many were self-citations 
by the Petitioner and co-authors. The Director could also analyze the Petitioner's submitted data from 
Clarivate Analytics to determine if it can serve as an objective rubric to determine the weight and 
sufficiency of the Petitioner's publication and citation history. It is important to note that while we 
listed "publication and other published materials that cite his work" as a point of consideration in 
Dhanasar, our ultimate determination that Dr. Dhanasar was well positioned under the second prong 
was not based on his citation record alone; rather, we found his "education, expertise, and experience 
5 
in his field, the significance of his roles in research projects, as well as sustained interest of and fonding 
from government entities such as NASA and AFRL" as relevant, probative and material proof of being 
well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
So we withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter with instructions to enter a new opinion 
consistent with the Dhanasar analytical framework described here. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
If the Director finds that the Petitioner meets the eligibility requirements contained in the first and 
second prongs of the Dhanasar framework they should move to evaluating whether, on balance, the 
Petitioner demonstrates that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a 
job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
When evaluating the third prong and if present in the record, USCIS can consider the following 
combination of facts to be a strong positive factor in favor of waiving the requirement of a job offer 
and thus a labor certification: 
• The person possesses an advanced STEM degree, particularly a Ph.D.; 
• The person will be engaged in work furthering a critical and emerging technology or other 
STEM area important to U.S. competitiveness; and 
• The person is well positioned to advance the proposed STEM endeavor of national importance. 
The Director can consider the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit to the U.S. of a 
petitioner's contributions, the urgency of a petitioner's contributions to the national interest, the 
capacity for job creation, and any adverse effects on U.S. workers when conducting the balancing of 
the national interests of waiving the requirements of a job offer and therefore a labor certification. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the matter will be remanded to the Director to determine whether the 
Petitioner has established: (1) the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision; (2) that the Petitioner is well positioned 
to advance the proposed endeavor under the second prong and; (3) on balance, it would be beneficial 
to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification for the 
Petitioner. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to rendering a 
decision under the foregoing analysis, and we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of 
this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
6