The Petitioner, an electrical engineering researcher, 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) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).
The Director ofthe 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.
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and contends that he is eligible for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework.
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal.
Law
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner 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.
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework:
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. - p. 2 (A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare ofthe United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer in the United States.
While 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). eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion , 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.
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreignnationalproposestoundertake. Theendeavor'smeritmaybedemonstratedinarangeofareas 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 foreign national. To determine whether he or she 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 third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the UnitedStatestowaivetherequirementsofajobofferandthusofalaborcertification. Inperforming this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming See also Poursina v. USC1S. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature).
Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established In announcing this new rramework. we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter ofNew York State Department of Transportation. 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). p. 3 that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States The Director found that the Petitoner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. At the time of filing, the Petitioner was a researcher in thel IDepartment of Electrical Engineering at University of.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .5 For the reasons discussed below, we find the Petitioner has established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar.
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor
I am designing a framework a t L J for the
I Idesign of cells and their placement I to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.
Analysis
The sole issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the The Petitioner indicated that he intends to continue his research relating to I ~ o l s for
Isupercom._p_u_t-er_s__-M-or_e_s_p_e-c1-f.-1c_a_ll_y_., Iexploration of memories in order to find an
Ito minimize.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____.." In
I addition, the record includes a letter from!..,.____,,,,...-..,._,,...----,-------'~ professor of electrical engineering and computer science a t e = ] stating that the Petit10ner' s proposed research involves "thel I __, .______________ tools, which are then used in I ~electronics." We agree with the Director that the Petitioner's proposed research endeavor has substantial merit. To satisfy the national importance requirement, the Petitioner must demonstrate the "potential prospective impact" ofhis work. The record includes letters ofsupport discussing how the Petitioner's proposed work stands to advance the U.S. electronics industry. For i~n_st_a_n_c_e...-.----------~ professor of electrical engineering and computer science at Universit of explained that the Petitioner's research is aimed at developing "new designs for.___ _ _ _ _ ____. emories and D gates" and that this work is "crucial to the advancement of the modem electronics industry. For example, new generations of computers and smartphones are continuously being produced, and these electronics rely on fosters CPUs [central processing units] and large memories that take up little space." Furthermore, the Petitioner has submitted documentation indicating that the benefit of his proposed research has broader implications for the field, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through engineering journals and conferences. As the Petitioner has documented both the The Petitioner presented the official academic record for his Master's degree in Electrical Engineering (September 2014) rrom University o f c = ] and an academic credential evaluation indicating that the aforementioned degree is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering.
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 consider information about this position 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.
See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. p. 4 substantial merit and national importance ofhis proposed endeavor, the record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. The record includes his curriculum vitae, academic records, published and presented work, and documentation of articles that cited to his research findings. In addition, the Petitioner offered reference letters describing his expertise in electrical engineering research and his past record of success in that field.
We find that the Petitioner's past experience renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Multiple expert references identify specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has impacted the field of electrical engineering. For exampleJ Ichief scien,....ti_st_at....___ _ ----1 r Istated that the Petitioner "created new innovative designs for L...---..-------, 1,, cells effectively reducing theirI
...... Iand substantially amplif)'!""'·na=...""'th=e=ir=---------la research engineer at University of ed memory! Iwith more~___;=------=-----!=:::;--w-i-th-o-u-t-r-ed-u-c-i-ng~ asse t' Likewise,I their in each cell." b incorporating next-generation.____ _.cells w i t h ~ - - - ~ - _ _ . _ , further noted that the Petitioner's "memory system reduce increased I Ias compared to contemporary m~e_m_o_ry_. h h
Petitioner "desi or
~------------' systems." an
~cells" and developed "effective methods to reduce the supply voltage of -~--With respect to the Petitioner's development of a method for correctly estimatingI Ii n c = ] filters, professor of electrical and computer engineering at University ofc=J ~--~indicated that the Petitioner's "method operates comple~dependent of · als, and it also offers valid, accurate estimation results for the many kinds ofL.....J: signals." further stated that that "[t]hese attributes have made [the Petitioner's] method for estimatin._,.__ _ _ _ _. a noteworthy and efficient tool for other researchers in the field."
The record contains additional letters from researchers who state that they relied on the Petitioner's findings in their work. As corroborating documentation regarding the significance of his work, the Petitioner provided citation evidence showing that his published work has been frequently cited by independent researchers, his field. This documentation helps demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research in the United States.
The Petitioner's experience and expertise in his field, published work, citation evidence, record o f success contributing to various research projects, and progress in electrical engineering research position him well to advance his proposed endeavor. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.
For instance, the Petitioner submitted a citation index from Google Scholar indicating that his top three articles have been cited to an aggregate ofmore than 90 times. and that the rate at which his work has been cited is high relative to others in p. 5 C. 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 denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not meet this prong because the record did "not persuasively establish that the Petitioner has had a substantial impact in the field." In addition, the Director stated that "the opinions of experts in the field" were insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner warrants a national interest waiver, but did not discuss any specific concerns relating to his reference letters.
We note that while the Petitioner's research contributions and the national interest in these contributions are relevant factors for consideration under prong three of the Dhanasar framework, there is no requirement that a petitioner demonstrate "a substantial impact in the field" in order to satisfy this prong. The Director's prong three analysis was also problematic because it did not consider the Petitioner's arguments and evidence relating to the benefit to the United States resulting from his research contributions, the impracticality of labor certification due to his unique skills, job creation associated with his proposed endeavor, and whether the national interest in his research is sufficiently urgent to warrant foregoing the labor certification process.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
As a researcher specializing in the design and implementation ofc=Jsoftware tools, the Petitioner possesses considerable experience and expertise in electrical engineering. The record also demonstrates the widespread benefits associated with research progress in.___ _ _ _ _ __,andl lcom~uting. In addition, the Petitioner has documented his past successes in advancing research relating tol I electronics, ' - - - - - - - ~ a n d ~ methods for digital systems, and in publishing influential research findings. Based on the Petitioner's track record of successful research and the significance of that work to advance U.S. technological interests, 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.
Conclusion
The Petitioner has met the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework. We find 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.