The Petitioner, a senior software engineer, 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. § l 153(b)(2).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a 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 oJChawathe, 25 l&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) ofthe Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&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 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature).
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
The Petitioner proposes to "develop innovative distributed query optimization techniques to improve the efficiency oflarge-scale geospatial data processing." SCOPS found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 2 The sole issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar.
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id.
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. The Petitioner seeks to continue his research on "developing innovative distributed query optimization techniques for scalable, high-performance data management systems in order to improve the efficiency of large-scale geospatial data processing and benefit industries such as transportation, environmental monitoring, and urban planning," as well as publish original computer science research in peer-reviewed conferences. SCOPS found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance.
Based on the evidence in the record, we agree with SCOPS' conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor relating to his prospective research is both substantially meritorious and nationally important. However, insofar as the Petitioner's proposed endeavor involves his employment as a senior software engineer at I Iwe do not agree that his work with I Iis nationally important, as the record does not show that the benefits of this work would result in broader implications beyond the benefits to his employer.No broader implications shown In Dhanasar, we discussed how teaching would not impact the field of education more broadly in a manner which rises to national importance. Dhanasar at 893. By extension, activities which only benefit the Petitioner's employer would not rise to a level of national importance.
B. 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 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 2 The Petitioner earned a Doctor of Philosophy degree (Ph.D.) in computer science from the 1 1in 2023. ~------~ p. 3 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.
In denying the petition, SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver because he did not establish that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and 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.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS applied a "heightened and inappropriate standards" and dismissed the submitted evidence.
The Petitioner also argues, citing to Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1226 (E.D. Mich. 1994), that SCOPS failed to consider all the relevant evidence and to properly review the totality of the evidence. With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that they meet each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what they claim is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Id. at 376. To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. The court in Buletini did not reject the concept of examining the quality of the evidence presented to determine whether it establishes a petitioner's eligibility, nor does it suggest that USCIS abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim a petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. See, e.g., Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021).
The Petitioner states that he is currently employed as a senior software engineer at I Iwhere he actively contributes to "distributed query optimization and silicon-independence initiatives." He explains that his position involves "research-driven engineering" and that he plans to "remain in this role to continue" advancing his proposed endeavor. He asserts that he will continue to optimize 'I Iplatform's independence and efficiency by implementing cutting-edge techniques like justin-time query compilation and code generation, thereby improving query performance and scalability across various platforms." While the Petitioner emphasizes that his proposed endeavor is distinct from his employment and affirms that he is providing information on his employment to "confirm [his] commitment and capacity" to pursue his proposed endeavor, he has not provided sufficient documentation detailing how he plans to carry out his proposed research activities independently of his role at I I For instance, the Petitioner has not provided evidence of progress toward achieving the specific goals of his proposed endeavor or a detailed plan outlining how future research activities will be carried out. Nor has he shown that there is established sufficient interest in his future research projects. It is also unclear how much time the Petitioner plans to devote towards research versus his responsibilities as a senior software engineer. We note that the Petitioner has not provided documentation from his employer to confirm the Petitioner's research nature of his duties. The record also lacks evidence of the connection between the Petitioner's day-to-day responsibilities as a senior software engineer and the research endeavor he proposes. The Petitioner, therefore, has not sufficiently explained how he is well positioned to advance his research endeavor.
The Petitioner asserts "his education, experience, expertise, documented record of success, and influence in his field, and his future plan have altogether well positioned him to advance the proposed endeavor of developing "innovative distributed query optimization techniques to improve the efficiency of large-scale geospatial data processing." He explains that his Ph.D. and master's degree in computer science, and his position atl Ias well as his knowledge and expertise in data management, query optimization, and data exploration has allowed him to be regularly invited to conduct peer review for authoritative journals and conferences in the field. He states that he has completed four reviews to date. The record includes documentation of the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, academic transcripts, peer-reviewed journal and conference articles, and Google Scholar citation record. The Petitioner also offered evidence of articles that cited to his published work, independent advisory opinions, letters of support, and industry reports and articles. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one.
We acknowledge that the Petitioner holds an advanced degree in a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) field which is tied to his proposed endeavor to develop "materials for sustainable resource management and clean energy." We further recognize the Petitioner's assertion that his work falls within a critical and emerging technology area, and we acknowledge the importance ofprogress in STEM fields and the role ofindividuals with advanced STEM degrees. Individuals with advanced STEM degrees particularly those holding a Ph.D., play key role in fostering progress, especially in areas vital to U.S. competitiveness and national security. 3 We therefore agree with the Petitioner that we consider his Ph.D. in a STEM field tied to his proposed endeavor to be an especially positive factor for establishing the second Dhanasar prong.
However, a degree, in and of itself, is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Id. When evaluated in the context of the full record, the Petitioner has not shown that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor as contemplated by Dhanasar. In addition to education, we look at a variety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor, and education is one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding. Id. In Dhanasar, the petitioner held three advanced degrees, including a Ph.D., tied to his proposed research which had significant implications for U.S. national security and competitiveness. To determine whether the petitioner was well positioned to continue to advance his proposed endeavor, we also favorably considered the significance of his research which had been corroborated by evidence as having peer and government interest; the significance ofhis role in his research projects; consistent funding from government agencies ofhis research projects; and his position with a U.S. university where he intended to conduct his proposed research work. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 892-93. Here, while we recognize the Petitioner's advanced degree and the general alignment of his academic background with his proposed research, an advanced degree and a record of publications are not, on their own, sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is particularly well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
The record includes independent advisory opinions and recommendation letters that commend the Petitioner's advanced skills in the field of computer science, spatial data analysis, and data 3 "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 technology or other STEM area important to 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 generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(2). p. 5 management systems. The authors describe how other researchers have relied on, leveraged, or built upon the Petitioner's prior research and characterize him as an expert within the computer science research community. The letters also discuss the Petitioner's past research projects and his contributions to areas such as scalable geospatial data analytics. One author states that he has drawn upon the Petitioner's findings to "enhance [his] research." However, while these letters are supportive in tone and positive factors, they generally lack specific and concrete examples demonstrating how the Petitioner's work has been adopted, applied in practical settings, or has influenced his field besides being referenced in other researcher's work.Support letters generic or unsupported The record also lacks evidence that the Petitioner's work has resulted in real-world applications or influenced academic or industry practices.
The Petitioner claims that his research has resulted in five peer-reviewed conference articles, three of which list him as first-authored, and that these papers have been published in top conference journals within his field. He states that he has published in two highly ranked peer-reviewed conferences and that other researchers have relied on his work to advance their own investigation. He farther asserts that his research has been successfully completed and disseminated through publications and that his work has received a total of 35 citations at the time of filin the etition. The Petitioner highlights that his research on .....,...-,--....,...-----,,.......,.--,---,.........,----...,........,-,,......,..,------,-..,.....,...-.,....---.,.....,....,--,-------,-~ is among the most highly cited in the field and that one article falls within the top 10% most-cited articles published in 2021. However, the Petitioner's Google Scholar citation record reflects that the article with the highest citation count lists the Petitioner as the fifth author. Moreover, for the articles on which the Petitioner is listed as first-author, the citation impact is limited: two articles published in 2021 received a total of five citations, while another article published as second-author in 2020 received one citation. Additionally, the Petitioner published first-author articles in 2023 and 2024 that have not received any citations. Although the Petitioner states that 63% of his citations originate from independent researchers, the majority of those citations are attributable to the article in which he was listed as the fifth author. Moreover, the letters submitted in support of the Petitioner's work in ~I-~ do not sufficiently clarify his specific role or level of contributions to that research. SCOPS noted that the Petitioner submitted data from Clarivate Analytics (CA) regarding baseline citation rates and percentiles by year of publication for different research fields. SCOPS also highlighted that the documentation from CA cautions that"[c ]itation frequency is highly skewed, with many infrequently cited papers and relatively few highly cited papers. Consequently, citation rates should not be interpreted as representing the central tendency of the distribution." We agree. Although the Petitioner submits a letter on appeal from a technical support from CA stating, among other things, that it is incorrect to interpret the CA help page as suggesting that the term "skew" indicates any form of unfair treatment of an author, the fact that a publication bears a high journal ranking or impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, show the influence of any particular author or otherwise demonstrate how an individual's research represents a record of success in their field.
While we agree with the Petitioner that the citations and recommendation letters indicate some degree of interest in his research from his colleagues and peers in the field, this evidence alone is insufficient to demonstrate a level of interest or a record of research success that renders him well positioned. The Petitioner's citation record must be weighed alongside other qualitative indicators of impact and influence. The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his p. 6 published articles, in and of themselves, reflect a record of success m similar efforts to meet Dhanasar 's second prong.
Moreover, while we listed Dr. Dhanasar's "publications and other published materials that cite his work" among the documents he presented, our determination that he was well positioned under the second prong was not based on his citation record.Citation record not persuasive Rather, in our precedent decision, we found "[t]he petitioner's education, expertise, and experience in his field, the significance of his role in research projects, as well as the sustained interest of and funding from government entities such as NASA and AFRL, position him well to continue to advance his proposed endeavor of hypersonic technology research." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893.
The Petitioner asserts that he has received funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIF A), and the Donald Bren Foundation. The record lacks sufficient detail regarding the Petitioner's special role or responsibilities in securing funds from the National Science Foundation or the Donald Bren Foundation, whether he was the primary award recipient or principal investigator. In support of the NIFA-funded project, the Petitioner submitted a letter from an associate professor who was one of the project directors in that project. The author explains that the Petitioner worked under the supervision of another project director on the NIF Afunded project and describes the Petitioner's contributions. However, the letter notes that the Petitioner was not listed as a principal investigator even though he played a valuable role in the research effort. Consequently, while the record shows that the Petitioner participated in projects that received funding, it cannot be concluded that these awards are indicative of his individual merit or his capacity to independently advance significant research endeavors. By contrast, in Dhanasar, we noted that the petitioner had received "consistent" government funding of research projects in which he played a "significant" role, specifically that he initiated or was the primary award contact on several funded grant proposals and was the only listed researcher on many of the grants. Id. at 893, Fn. 11. Here, although the Petitioner's involvement in funded researches is favorable, the evidence submitted does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to independently secure funding or lead the advancement of his proposed endeavor.
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted and published research, but he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed research. While we recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way 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 ofthe proposed research, record of success in similar efforts, or generation of interest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890. In considering the record in totality, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his past publications and his current employment will allow him to continue to advance his proposed research as described in the record. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
C. 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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884. However, as the Petitioner has not established that he meets the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not shown that he is eligible for and otherwise merits a national interest waiver, and we therefore reserve the Petitioner's arguments with respect to this issue. 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 of L-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).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of 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.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
NOTICE: This constitutes the final decision in this matter. The filing of a motion will not postpone the effect of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iv). Aliens who are not lawfully present, or who are otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may be subject to the commencement of removal proceedings under section 240 ofthe Act through the issuance of a Form I-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.