sustained EB-2 NIW Case: Aerospace Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 16, 2024 In Re: 32081991 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a mechanical and aerospace engineer, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an 
individual of exceptional ability in the arts, sciences or business. In addition, he seeks a national 
interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to the EB-2 classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had 
not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in 
the national interest. 1 We dismissed his appeal, and initially dismissed the Petitioner's combined 
motions to reopen and reconsider, but subsequently reopened them on service motion. The matter is 
now before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
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). Upon review, we will grant the motion 
and sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) 
authority to reopen or reconsider to instances where a petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that 
action. Thus, to merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing 
requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii) (such as submission of a properly completed and signed 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show proper cause for 
granting the motion. Specifically, a motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by 
documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. § 103.5(a)(3). Our 
1 Because the Director found the Petitioner eligible for classification as a member of the professions possessing an 
advanced degree, the decision did not evaluate the Petitioner's alternative claim that he also qualifies for EB-2 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
I 
review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l )(ii). We may grant 
motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
IT. BACKGROUND 
Immediately prior to filing the instant petition, the Petitioner was employed as a senior engineer for 
___________ and in this role, he performed aerodynamics and computational fluid 
dynamics (CFD) engineering services as a contractor for ___________ in 
Florida. He indicates that he intends to continue his work in the field of mechanical and aerospace 
engineering in the United States with a specific focus in CFD, which he explains is a branch of fluid 
mechanics that uses numerical analysis and data structures to analyze and solve problems that involve 
fluid flows. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as a mechanical and aerospace engineer 
specializing in CFD is to conduct fundamental studies of flow physics for special applications; develop 
numerical tools and methods for addressing general and special challenges; conduct root cause 
analysis to identify and resolve aerothermal problems and fluid structure interactions; and design and 
analyze devices and components with CFD before and after experiments. He indicates that his work 
will provide greater information and further an understanding in the field of CFD by promoting multi­
disciplinary interactions and applications of various methods and technologies based in CFD research. 
The Petitioner explained the manner in which his studies would examine the overlap of various 
technologies, noting the relationship between aircraft wings and turbine blades for power generation 
and the manner in which aircraft aerodynamics can lead to the production of aerodynamically fuel­
efficient automobiles. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner earned a Ph.D. and a master's degree in aerospace 
engineering from the ________________ in 2015 and 2011, respectively. 
The record also indicates that the Petitioner attained two foreign specialized engineering degrees, 
involving energetics and combustion, prior to completing his graduate work in the United States. 
Therefore, our appellate decision determined that the record demonstrates that the Petitioner qualifies 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. In dismissing the combined motions, we 
affirmed our appellate determination that the Petitioner met the first prong of the analytical framework 
described in the precedent decision Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), but had not 
sufficiently established that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under the second 
prong. 
Dhanasar provides that after a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS 
may, as matter of discretion, 2 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: (1) the proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the individual is well-positioned to 
advance their proposed endeavor; and (3) on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit 
the United States. 3 Because our motion decision concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the second 
2 See also 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). 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
prong, we did not analyze prong three, the remaining eligibility ground, under the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 4 
While the motion was pending, USCIS updated the USCIS Policy Manual's guidance to provide 
additional guidance regarding specific evidentiary considerations relating to persons with advanced 
degrees in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM). 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. See also USCIS Policy 
Alert, P A-2022-02, National Interest Waivers for Advanced Degree Professionals or Persons of 
Exceptional Ability (Jan. 21, 2022), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy­
manual-updates/20220121-N ationa!InterestWaivers.pdf. 
As the Petitioner in this case possesses an advanced degree in a STEM field tied to the proposed 
endeavor he is impacted by the above policy manual updates, but our motion decision did not address 
them. As such, in February 2024 we reopened the Petitioner's motion sua sponte, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a)(S)(ii), to consider anew the merits of the claims contained in his motion brief. The 
Petitioner was permitted a period of 30 days in which to provide a supplemental brief. In the 
Petitioner's supplemental brief, he asserts that our motion decision was based on an incorrect 
application of USCIS policy and argues the record establishes the Petitioner has met the remaining 
two prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
III. ANALYSIS 
As stated, the issue before us is whether the Petitioner has submitted new facts supported by 
documentary evidence sufficient to warrant reopening his appeal and/or established that our decision to 
dismiss the appeal was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. The Petitioner must 
specify the factual and legal issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked in our initial 
decision. 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
l. Well-positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine 
whether an individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors 
including, but not limited to 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Our appellate decision reviewed documentation of the Petitioner's 
curriculum vitae, academic records (including his Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering), articles that cited 
to his research findings, peer review activity, and offers of employment. 5 We also noted that the 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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). 
5 Pursuant to the updated guidance mentioned above, "USCIS considers an advanced degree, particularly a Doctor of 
Philosophy (Ph.D.), in a STEM field tied to the proposed endeavor and related to work furthering a critical and emerging 
3 
Petitioner offered reference letters describing his expertise in CFD analysis and mechanical and 
aerospace engineering, and his past record of success in those research areas. In our appellate decision, 
we determined that though the record demonstrates the Petitioner conducted, published, and presented 
research during his graduate studies and in his professional career, he has not shown that this work 
renders him well-positioned to advance his proposed CFD research. 
On motion and in his supplemental brief, the Petitioner asserts that we failed to carefully analyze 
strong examples of his record of success in the field, including letters detailing how his work 
developing advanced gas turbine diffusers and his employment of novel techniques in CFD to model 
the fluid dynamics of hot gas exhaust flow path have influenced the field of mechanical and aerospace 
engineering. After further review, when considered collectively, the expert testimonial letters and 
other documentation submitted establish sufficiently that the Petitioner's past experience renders him 
well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
For example, I I Director of Engineering at I I an aerospace components 
company, provides that the Petitioner used CFD to solve a safety problem with a cone-shaped probe 
used by its customers in military aircraft. He explains that a "pressure droop" 
caused faulty in-flight readings that increased the risk of stall and mid-air collision. After 
aerodynamicists of the planes' respective manufacturers at I I I Iwere unable to solve the problem, it was referred to the Petitioner atl I I !aerospace engineering department for CFD analysis. 
relates that the Petitioner determined that the air flowing over the probe was reaching 
supersonic speeds and developing a shock wave, causing the error in static pressure measurement and 
leading to inaccuracies in altitude and airspeed calculations. The Petitioner recommended small 
protrusions in the surface of the cone to effectively "trip" the boundary layer and detach the 
shockwave; when customers implemented the "trip dots" the problem was solved. I !states 
that I I incorporated the Petitioner's solution into all new cone-shaped probe designs to 
eliminate the pressure droop issue and prevent aircraft mishaps. Therefore, the Petitioner 
demonstrated that his novel solutions in CFD modeling were essential to redesign! lprobe 
design and were implemented and utilized by its military aircraft clients. 
With respect to the Petitioner's work developing solutions and techniques in CFD modeling for the 
design and development of highly sophisticated gas turbines as a contractor for I I the record 
contains two letters from I I the principal engineer and project lead in the gas turbine 
technology department atl I who served as the Petitioner's technical supervisor between 2013 
and 2019. He indicates that the Petitioner's research in the field of turbomachinery aerodynamics and 
CFD has been "instrumental to the development of improved gas turbine exhaust diffusers and turbine 
blade tip aerodynamics which continues to result in innovations and improvement in gas turbine 
efficiency." 
technology or other STEM area important to U.S. competitiveness or national security, an especially positive factor to be 
considered along with other evidence for purposes of the assessment under the second prong." See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F.5(D)(2). 
4 
Iprovides that between 2015 and 2019 the Petitioner led experimental testing and 
computational analysis at the I Iexhaust diffuser test rig, where he applied novel 
numerical techniques to model the performances of current and advanced aerodynamic exhaust 
diffuser technologies. He also developed novel techniques in CFD to model the fluid dynamics of hot 
gas exhaust flow path. 6 He further focused on optimizing the performance of exhaust diffusers under 
various load conditions. I I asserts that the Petitioner's research was essential to improve 
existing and newly designed gas turbine exhaust diffusers and allowed I lenergy to deliver novel 
gas turbine exhaust diffusers, notably the BL-class gas turbines. Specifically, the Petitioner was 
instrumental in achieving a smaller footprint while delivering 25% higher power output compared to 
the previous H-class engines, providing utility company clients more stable and efficient power around 
the world. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted a letter dated 2018 froml Ihead of the thermal 
turbomachine at the 
__________ which collaborates with in the field of axial gas turbine 
diffuser flows . ___ relates he had worked with the Petitioner since 2015 and confirms the 
Petitioner's responsibility for fluid dynamic simulations for the I I test rig and real gas turbine 
energy diffusers, and his involvement in the design and development of highly sophisticated gas 
turbines for efficient and reliable power generation. I !explains that, as gas turbines are also 
applicable for solar thermal power plants, the Petitioner's skill and expertise in gas turbine 
development efforts has applications in a variety of fields, such as the development of a fossil-free 
electric power supply," meaning that "[the Petitioner] is effectively working in one of the most 
important areas for today's society and future generations." 
On motion, the Petitioner argues that he provided additional evidence that demonstrates the direct 
practical use of his work, as published materials show that newly designed I I gas turbine 
diffusers, in which he was instrumentally involved, were being implemented and utilized by utility 
companies and applauded in the field of turbomachinery aerodynamics. Screenshots of articles posted 
on the websites www.powermag.com and www.dieselgasturbine .com indicate world-wide 
commercialization of the BL-class engines, including in gas power plants in the United States, United 
Kingdom, and a combined cycle (gas/steam) power plant in South Korea. They indicated that the 
"higher efficiency" BL-class was designed to "save fuel and also reduce emissions of carbon dioxide 
by as much as 3.7 million metric tons per year, compared to coal-fired power plants" making such 
turbines "the best match to backup and balance renewables." 
Further, on motion, the Petitioner provides a letter from Professor principal 
I 
investigator of the CFD laboratory 
I
of the department of mechanical engineering at the I I
Japan, who praises the Petitioner 's doctoral work in wind energy 
engineering, specifically, his novel use of multi-element airfoils to improve vertical axis wind turbine 
performance. He acknowledges benefiting from the Petitioner's work, having highlighted his research 
in four of his own published articles. In our appellate decision, we found that the number of citations 
I I
6 Iindicates that the results of the Petitioner's research for have proprietary limitations preventing their 
publication; he states that the "[m]ajor findings of [the Petitioner's] research are included in I exhaust diffuser 
design and development guidelines" which "are confidential documents and cannot be disclosed." 
5 
received by the Petitioner's five published articles did not reflect a level of interest in his work 
sufficient to meet Dhanasar 's second prong. 
While a strong citation history can be useful in establishing the influence or significance of an 
individual's work within the broader field, upon review we agree with the Petitioner's argument on 
motion that the evidence in the aggregate supports his assertion that his past work has found practical 
application in industry settings, rendering him well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The 
above documentation, as well as other materials not discussed in this decision, provided specific 
examples indicating that the Petitioner's novel solutions and techniques in CFD modeling for 
turbomachinery and optimization have greatly contributed to gas turbine technology development, 
served as an impetus for progress in his field, and been implemented and utilized by utility companies. 
The record, therefore, demonstrates sufficiently that the Petitioner's novel techniques in CFD 
represent a record of success and progress rendering him well-positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor. 
Moreover, the Petitioner provided correspondence from potential employers in the field that refer to 
his personal research or accomplishments in the area of CFD as they pertain to the aerospace industry. 7 
For example, a letter from I I an engineering project manager at I I ___________ indicates an interest in employing the Petitioner, based on his 
"[ c ]ontribution to aviation safety" through work on the I I probe, and his "conception and 
thorough investigation of [an] advanced model for wind power extraction using aeronautical 
techniques." Regarding the latter issue, he cites to two of the Petitioner's publications (2013 
____________ and 2017 ______________ - as examples of 
the Petitioner's novel approach, adapting methods and techniques commonly used in the aerospace 
sector to enhance the field of wind energy engineering, by adapting the multi-element airfoils standard 
for aircraft wings for the enhancement of wind power extraction. 
In addition, an assistant professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at 
the __________ indicated he assessed the Petitioner's work in considerin the 
Petitioner for a research engineer position involvin the o timization of the
I lin collaboration with ____________________
I I He asserts that the Petitioner "has exhibited a truly rare ability to 
support and develop new investigations into the details of flow physics through CFD" and "has 
positioned himself at the forefront of the fields of wind engineering , aerospace sciences, and CFD 
engineering." Further, I I a research aerospace engineer with the ________
I I indicated that Iexpresses great interest in the endeavor as proposed by the 
[Petitioner]," noting thatl Iutilizes CFD for advances in aeronautics for both civilian and military 
applications. 
Finally, in his supplemental brief, as further corroborating documentation regarding the significance of 
his work, the Petitioner cites to the 2024 U.S. National Science and Technology Council's updated list 
7 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we will consider infonnation about his position at and his desired positions at 
and to illustrate the capacity in which he intends to work in order to determine whether his 
proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar framework. 
6 
of critical and emerging technologies and notes the Petitioner's involvement in projects related to 
listed critical and emerging technology areas such as I I 
I I His experience and 
expertise in his STEM fields of mechanical and aerospace engineering and CFD and their applications in 
areas such as turbomachinery, aviation safety, and renewable energy, as well as his progress in his field 
and published articles, position him well to advance his proposed endeavor. Accordingly, upon review, 
we agree with the Petitioner that he has demonstrated that he satisfies the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
2. 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. In performing this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the 
nature of the individual's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for 
them to secure a job offer or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether 
the national interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor 
certification process. 
In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890-91. In addition, USCIS considers the following combination of facts 
contained in the record to be a strong positive factor: possession of an advanced STEM degree, 
particularly a Ph.D.; engagement in work furthering a critical and emerging technology or other STEM 
area important to U.S. competitiveness; and that the individual is well-positioned to advance the 
proposed STEM endeavor of national importance. 
The evidence demonstrates that as a mechanical and aerospace engineer with a Ph.D., the Petitioner 
possesses considerable experience and expertise in his STEM research fields, and that he would be 
engaged in work furthering a critical or emerging technology. The Petitioner has documented his past 
successes in industry settings in using CFD to analyze and solve problems relating to aerodynamics and 
turbomachinery. The record also demonstrates the widespread scientific benefits associated with research 
progress in advanced gas turbine engine technologies. Based on the Petitioner's track record of successful 
research work and the significance of his proposed work to advance U.S. scientific interests furthering a 
critical and emerging technology, we find that he offers contributions of such value that, on balance, they 
would benefit the United States even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available. The 
Petitioner, therefore, meets the third prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Upon review, the record establishes the Petitioner has met the requisite three prongs set forth in the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. We conclude that he has established he is eligible for and otherwise 
merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
7 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established that his motion meets the requirements of a motion to reconsider under 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Therefore, we will grant his motion to reconsider. 
Because the Petitioner has established eligibility on motion to reconsider, we need not address the 
arguments presented on motion to reopen. The motion to reopen is moot. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is granted and the appeal sustained. 
8