The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) professional, 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 the record did not establish that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification and 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 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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.
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that ofa bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). To qualify for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional based on an advanced degree, a petitioner must submit an official academic record showing that the alien has a United States advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree. 8 C.F.R. §204.5(k)(3)(i).
Ifa 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 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 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.
Analysis
In his initial statement, the Petitioner stated his proposed endeavor is "to develop state-of-the-art security schemes for wireless sensor networks in order to improve the identification and prevention of cyber-attacks and ensure the security of energy- and resource-constrained networks." The Petitioner explained he intended to pursue a position as an assistant professor in the United States and his research would focus on "enhancing the security and resilience of wireless sensor networks (WSN s) and Internet of Things (IoT) devices in the context of Smart Cities, with an emphasis on developing innovative solutions to mitigate cybersecurity threats and attacks."
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a second statement in which he explained his plans to continue teaching networks and cybersecurity courses and sharing the results of his research through conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications, and partnerships with government agencies, academic institutions, and business partners. The Petitioner also specified three research projects he would pursue: deep learning-based ransomware detection using transfer learning; adaptive deep learning mechanisms for blockchain-enhanced security in IoT ecosystems; and brain tumor detection and classification using CNN: a transfer learning approach. A. EB-2 Classification as an Advanced Degree Professional The Petitioner submitted evidence of his Doctor of Philosophy degree in computer science from his academic transcript, and a credential evaluation and authentication report concluding the Petitioner's degree was equivalent to a U.S. doctoral degree. The Director determined the credential evaluation report was insufficient to establish the Petitioner obtained the U.S. equivalent of an advanced degree. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that in response to the Director's RFE, he submitted the credential evaluation's course-by-course evaluation, and the evidence shows he possesses the equivalent of a U.S. doctoral degree. Upon de novo review, we agree. The Petitioner submitted evidence of his doctorate, his corresponding transcript and a full credential evaluation concluding that his degree is equivalent to a U.S. doctorate. The Petitioner has thus established that he is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
B. 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. Id. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner's statement submitted in response to the RFE was inconsistent with his initial proposed endeavor because he added he would teach and his proposed project on brain tumor detection appeared unrelated to his original proposed endeavor focused on cybersecurity.Inconsistencies in the record The Director concluded the inconsistencies prevented an evaluation ofthe substantial merit ofhis proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his statement submitted in response to the RFE simply p. 3 provided more details and described the means by which he would advance his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner claims he submitted reports on the economic impact of global cyberattacks and the importance of IoT applications in achieving energy efficiency which, along with support letters from other researchers, establish the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. We agree. The record demonstrates the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in technology. The Director also determined the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed endeavor has substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director erroneously assessed the Petitioner's support letters and did not accurately evaluate his proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner claims his peer-reviewed publications, citation record, support letters and other reports demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The record shows the Petitioner has published research related to his proposed endeavor which has been highly cited. The Petitioner submitted evidence that he has co-authored 19 articles published in peer-reviewed journals, including 11 of which were first-authored, and which had been cited a total of 445 times. The Petitioner submitted evaluations showing four of his articles are ranked among the top 10 percent of the mostcited articles in computer science. The Petitioner also submitted evidence of the high ranking of several of the journals in which his articles have been published. The Petitioner's publication and citation record shows his research has broadly impacted his field at a level indicative of national importance.
Letters from other researchers attest to the national implications of the Petitioner's work in computer science. For example, S-A-2 states the Petitioner's "analysis of contemporary security approaches in cyber physical systems (CPS)" paved the way "for more secure CPS in critical sectors including national security and communications." S-A-S- states the Petitioner "introduced a method for preventing and detecting wormhole and blackhole attacks in wireless sensor networks," which significantly contributed to "the acceleration of smart city technology and ensuring the continued technological leadership of the United States." F-R- explains the Petitioner developed 1 I I Ito evaluate the trustworthiness of deployed sensor nodes and isolate malicious nodes," which "constitutes a new methodological paradigm for managing malicious nodes in WSNs, which are notoriously difficult to detect." F-R- concludes that the Petitioner's "trustbased security systems for WSNs" are vital to the United States' "dire need of computer science research that seeks to ensure security, privacy, and attack resilience in WSNs as the IoT grows." The Petitioner also submitted articles and reports on internet crime, cybersecurity, considerations for managing IoT cybersecurity and privacy risks, unlocking the potential of IoT, critical infrastructure protection in modem society, advancing innovation to make the U.S. more globally competitive, how to capture the value of IoT, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity for IoT Program. These reports and articles show the Petitioner's proposed endeavor involves nationally important issues in cybersecurity.
In sum, the record demonstrates the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broad implications in his field and involves nationally important issues of cybersecurity. On appeal, the Petitioner has established the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
C. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. Id. at 890. To determine whether individuals 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 Id.
The Director determined the Petitioner was not well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director erroneously assessed the evidence of his education, publication and citation record, and support letters. We agree. The Petitioner has a doctoral degree in computer science and his support letters attest to his skills and knowledge. The Petitioner's publication and citation record further attest to his record of success in efforts similar to his proposed endeavor and show his progress towards achieving his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's two statements further provide a detailed plan for his future activities.
The Petitioner's citation record and additional support letters submitted in response to the Director's RFE evidence the interest of other researchers in his work and proposed endeavor. A-A- describes how the Petitioner's work on security issues and attacks in WSN s has influenced the work of three otherresearch teams. K-S- describes how the Petitioner'~ Iinfluenced the research of computer science teams in India, Saudi Arabia, Italy, and China, which "stand as a testament to the widespread impact of [ the Petitioner's] research and its importance to computer science." H-M- explains how the Petitioner's work in WSNs has been used by scholars in Pakistan, Ireland, China, the United States, India, and Malaysia. H-M- states the Petitioner's! Iand associated research are fundamental to the security of wireless sensor networks" and "his work in this area has been utilized by scholars from around the world."
The record documents the Petitioner's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts to his proposed endeavor; a plan for his future activities; his progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of other research teams in his proposed endeavor and related work. The Petitioner has thus established that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. D. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial
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. Id. at 890-91. 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 p. 5 interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Id. 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 ofa job offer and thus ofa labor certification. Id. at 891.
The Petitioner's education and proposed endeavor in a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) field merit special consideration under United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Policy. USCIS recognizes the importance of progress in STEM fields and the essential role that individuals with advanced STEM degrees have in fostering such progress. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/. Accordingly, strong positive factors to consider when assessing the third Dhanasar prong include possession of an advanced STEM degree, engagement in work furthering a critical and emerging technology, and being well positioned to advance the proposed STEM endeavor of national importance. Id. The first and third factors are present in the Petitioner's case.
However, the Petitioner has not established his eligibility under the factors identified in Dhanasar. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erroneously concluded that because the Petitioner did not meet the first and second Dhanasar prongs, he also did not meet the third Dhanasar prong. Although the Petitioner has established the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor and that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, he has not demonstrated 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 under the factors articulated in Dhanasar.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
The Petitioner has not established that it would be impractical either for him to secure a job offer or to obtain a labor certification.Labor certification not shown to be impractical On appeal, the Petitioner asserts "the standardization of the labor process makes it impractical to obtain a labor certification." The Petitioner does not articulate how the standardization of the labor process makes it impractical for him to obtain a labor certification. The Petitioner also does not demonstrate that it would be impractical for him to secure a job offer. To the contrary, in his second statement submitted in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner states: "Based on my extensive experience in the field, I am confident in my ability to secure a position related to my proposed endeavor in the United States."
The Petitioner also has not established that the national interest in his contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process.No interest from users, customers or investors While they attest to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and past research, the Petitioner's support letters do not indicate that the national interest in his contributions is so urgent it would warrant forgoing the labor certification process. On appeal, the Petitioner does not address this issue.
The record indicates that even assuming other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the Petitioner's contributions. The record does not establish, however, that it would be impractical either for him to secure a job offer or to obtain a labor certification, and that the national interest in his contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Considered together, these factors do not 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. Consequently, the Petitioner does not meet the third Dhanasar prong.
Conclusion
The Petitioner has established that he is an advanced degree professional eligible for EB-2 classification, and that he meets the first and second Dhanasar prongs. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets the third Dhanasar prong and merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.