The Petitioner, a researcher in the field of computer science, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 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, although the record established the Petitioner's qualification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, it did not establish that a waiver ofthe required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be 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 ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 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 I&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 ofdiscretion, 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.
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
Analysis
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The sole issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as described in a statement initially submitted with his petition, is to "develop, optimize, and evaluate artificial intelligence-driven machine learning methods and natural language processing (NLP) models for healthcare in order to enhance healthcare outcomes through improved patient-doctor communication and telehealth services, and advanced drug discovery." The Petitioner continues, explaining that he intends to use "[his] extensive experience with machine learning and NLP, fine-tuning large language models (LLMs), and analyzing healthrelated social media discussions and electronic health record data for public health insights" to advance this endeavor. In a second statement submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner elaborates that the pursuit of his proposed endeavor will involve six research rojects. The first, titled Models and
'will "contribute to the field ofdrug discovery through the development ofinnovative AI-driven methods." With the second project, titled'~-------~---------' the Petitioner will focus on "creating AI-driven physiotherapy and exercise programs tailored for children with scoliosis." Throu h the third research ro • ect, '----------------------------------------'," the
Petitioner intends to continue his research to "contribute to public health efforts by leveraging AI and NLP techniques to understand and mitigate risky behaviors in MSM populations." The Petitioner intends the fourth project! Ito extend p. 3 analytical framework2
. Accordingly, we conclude that he has not provided adequate reasons or evidence on appeal to overcome the Director's determination that he is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Since this basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning his eligibility under the first and third prongs ofthe Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision).
The second prong of the Dhanasar framework shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether they are well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to, their 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.Past record does not show influence or success Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
The record includes the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, academic records, published work, reference letters, information regarding the Petitioner's publication and citation record, and excerpts from research citing his work. The Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that his education, reference letters, and his significant publication and citation records demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Turning to the factors enumerated in Matter ofDhanasar for evaluating evidence under the second prong, we first consider the Petitioner's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or other efforts. We acknowledge that the Petitioner has received a master's degree in computer science fro~ Iand that he is currently pursuing a Ph.D.
had an impact in the field ofcomputer science, assisted others in this field, or otherwise reflect a record of success or progress showing that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. To establish his claimed "exceptional" record of success, the Petitioner provided an updated curriculum vitae and a Google Scholar document demonstrating that he has published two peerreviewed journal articles, two peer-reviewed conference articles, and has two articles in preprint. The Petitioner offered an analysis of the frequency with which these articles had been cited to by independent researchers in the field of computer science, and excerpts of the articles themselves. The Google Scholar document shows that the Petitioner was one of several authors on each ofthese journal articles and conference articles; the Petitioner's updated CV indicates that he is lead author on one article still under review. It fu ,,U.,.<L...CI..LJ.J,JU:.......l...J.L......,_........._.._..................,,_.r..u..,.........._L...L>,..,_,__...........u....Ju...i.o.J....LL.........................,......._.........,,.l..lJ.LL...U........=-, times and that an article titled ' published in the journal
'------------------------' ~-----~ garnished the highest number of citations at 14. The Petitioner submitted reports from Clarivate Analytics showing baseline citations and percentile rankings by number of citations for several fields, including "computer science" and contends that this evidence shows that this article ranks among the most highly cited articles in the field of computer science, distinguishing him from others in his field. The Petitioner asserts that the 14 citations to hisl I article place it in the tenth percentile of publications in computer science for that year. However, the Petitioner does not offer evidence to show that an article published in the journal, categorized in the Google Scholar impact factor document under "Humanities, Literature & Arts, Sex & Sexuality," would be placed in the same research field as "Computer Science."Citation record not persuasive Thus we are unable to determine whether the number of citations to this article is high relative to those in the Petitioner's stated field.
The Petitioner also contends on appeal that his publication iq I a journal with a high impact factor, demonstrates that "his findings hold considerable value for his entire field in addition to his area of specialty." Although the elevated ranking ofthis journal may be one factor contributing to a showing of an individual researcher's record of success, we may not assume that every article published in a high-ranking journal is indicative of a record of this success. Further, the Google Scholar impact factor document describes! las "[t]he only peer-reviewed journal covering all areas pertinent to the health of and healthcare services for sexual and gender minority populations worldwide." The Petitioner does not offer evidence or explain on appeal how publication in a journal focused on health and healthcare services a demonstrates the value of his research to the field of computer science.
The recommendation letters in the record, such as the one written by Dr. I Iand one written by Professor! I head of the department of medical engineering atl I I Ialso discuss how they and other researchers have used research coauthored by the Petitioner to achieve their own research goals. While this correspondence shows that others have used the Petitioner's research, Dr. I I and Professor Odo not offer information to establish that the Petitioner's citations are high relevant to others in the field of computer science. Absent additional evidence sufficient to show that the Petitioner's publication and citation rates are high relative to others in his field, the Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, the claimed "exceptional" record of success asserted on appeal. Further, although we listed Dr.I t'publications and other published materials that cite to his work" among the documents he presented, our determination that he was well-positioned was not based on his citation record. p. 5 I
Rather, we based it on "[t]he petitioner's education, experience, and expertise in his field, the significance of his role in research projects, as well as the sustained interest and funding from government entities." Id. at 893.
The next factors applicable to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework are a model or plan for future activities and any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor. Reference letters in the record show that the Petitioner has conducted research relating directly to each ofthe research projects that he intends to carry out as part ofhis proposed endeavor. The Petitioner also provided a letter from Dr. I I a professor of computer science and of electrical engineering at I discussing the Petitioner's development of "smartwatch-based mental health monitoring system that collects physiological data and employ an innovative deep neural network that processes and interprets these signals." Dr.lexpresses an interest in hiring the Petitioner as a postdoctoral researcher upon the Petitioner's successful completion ofhis doctoral program, based in part upon this research. The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during his graduate studies. It further shows that the Petitioner plans to pursue, and has been offered, employment as a postdoctoral researcher to conduct further research upon completion of his graduate work. However, this evidence is not sufficient to show that this work renders him well-positioned to advance his proposed research.
While we recognize that research must add information to the pool ofknowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication, presentation, funding, or academic credit, not every individual who has performed original research will be found to be well-positioned to advance their 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 or a record of success in similar efforts supports such a finding. Id. at 890. Here the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the field of computer science or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the computer science community. Nor does the evidence otherwise show that his work constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing research in this field. Not every individual who has conducted original research and published findings will be found to be well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Rather, we must examine the factors set forth in Matter ofDhanasar to determine whether, for instance, the individual's education, skills, and record of success, their model or plan for future activities, their progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and the generation of interest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890. In considering the record in totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that he has not established he 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.