sustained EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical And Computer Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19516630 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 6, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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) section203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(b)(2). 
The Directorofthe Texas Service Center denied the FormI-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 
concluding that the Petitioner had not established that he met the second and third prongs under the 
analytical framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 As a result, 
the Director determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that a waiver of the required job offer, 
and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
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. 3 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361;MatterofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). 
Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 4 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act . Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDO'I). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 1 7-16579 , 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USC IS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interestwa iverto be discretionary in nature). 
3 SeeDhanasar , 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 We review the questions in this matter de nova . SeeMatterofChristo 's Inc.,26 I&NDec . 537, 537 n.2(AAO2015). 
I. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is currently a research associate 5 at the Universi~ I in the field of electrical 
and computer engineering. His research "focuses on robotic~! : I systems, and applied 
,__ _____ __.I" Specifically ,he is investigating 1) the use ofL lminiaturd O I 
agents to treat cardiovascular disease through a grant from the National Science Foundation, 2) the 
uses of small, floatin~ I devices which transmit informatio to protect a 
I I 3) new methods to control drones and 4 a new system for the 
I lofunderwaterrobotst_~------------------~· The Director 
determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree6 
and meets the first prong under the Dhanasar analysis and we agree. 
The Petitioner, through counsel, argues on appeal that the Director did not properly analyze his case 
in comparison to the standard set by Dhanasar. The Petitioner asserts that the Director is legally 
required to compare the impact of his work with that of Dr. Dhanasar and cites to the concept of 
precedent decisions in support. While we agree that Dhanasar is a precedent decision and further 
acknowledge the concept of precedent decisions and their controlling nature, the Petitioner has cited 
no legal authority for a one-to-one comparison of two petitioners operating in different fields with 
different proposed endeavors. Dhanasar establishes an analytical framework to examine national 
interest waiver cases, but it does not mandate, or even suggest, that a side-by-side comparison of 
individual petitioners and endeavors is required. The Petitioner misunderstands the nature of 
precedent decisions when he asserts that approvals are required for any petitioner with more impact 
than Dr. Dhanasar. 
Notwithstanding the above, for the reasons discussed below, we find the Petitioner has established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the remaining two prongs of the Dhanasar analysis. 
A. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong of the Dhanasar analysis focuses on the Petitioner. To detennine whether he 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 record includes copies of the Petitioner's advanced degrees, numerous cited articles (many of 
which list him as the first author), evidence of the receipt of grants, and reference letters from 
researchers and medical professionals that discuss the importance and practical applications of his 
research ro ·ects, and the advances he has made. For exam le, the letters indicate that the Petitioner 
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=.~....,,........"' I ~----------------------------~....,,........' which "allows a 
5 At the time of filing, the Petitioner was a post-doctoral fellow. 
6 The Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and a master's degree in electric energy. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). 
2 
drastic increase in the stren h of the roduced," and~-----------~ 
The Petitioner's experience and expertise, published work and its impact upon other researchers, 
record of success, and progress in advancing his research projects establish that he is well positioned 
to advance his proposed endeavor. We therefore conclude that he satisfies the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
B. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
The third prong requires a 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. Not only does 
the Petitioner possess considerable experience and expertise, but the record also demonstrates the 
widespread benefits associated with research developments in his field and their broad application. 
The Petitioner has documented his past successes in advancing research and providing influential 
research findings. Based on the Petitioner's track record of successful research and the significance 
of his ongoing studies, 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. 
II. CONCLUSION 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
3