The Petitioner, a professor and researcher, 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).
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 ofthe 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. 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 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's proposed endeavor involves integrating and examining the "impacts of social media, machine learning, the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, and other emerging technologies on psychosocial, economic, and political areas." SCOPS found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member ofthe 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 relevant question is not the importance ofthe field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the [petitioner] proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. In Dhanasar, we farther noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890.
With respect to the first Dhanasar prong, SCOPS acknowledged the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, but concluded that it did not rise to the level of national importance. Upon review, we disagree and withdraw SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong. As evidence that his proposed research in the field of information systems has substantial merit and national importance, the Petitioner presented documentation including a personal statement describing the proposed endeavor and future plans, peer-reviewed journal articles, citation records, and industry reports and articles. The Petitioner also provided probative letters ofsupport from experts in the field describing the Petitioner's past research and contributions to the information systems field, his proposed endeavor, and its potential prospective impact in the field. Moreover, the Petitioner presented evidence indicating the dissemination of his research to others in the field through scientific journal articles and that his endeavor has the potential to advance a critical and emerging technology field. USCIS recognizes the importance of progress in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, especially in focused 2 The Petitioner earned a Doctor of Philosophy degree (Ph.D.) in information systems from the~I---~!university in South Africa in 2017. p. 3 critical and emerging technologies important to U.S. compet1t1veness or national security. See generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual, F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed research, he has established that he 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 individual. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 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 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, although SCOPS determined that the Petitioner was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner did not 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.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that SCOPS mischaracterized, diminished, or ignored the evidence. The Petitioner farther contends that SCOPS failed to apply the proper standard of proof. Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. We, therefore, withdraw SCOPS' finding that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was employed as a professor at I !University. In describing the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner initially stated that he intended to "integrate and examine the impacts of social media, machine learning, the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, and other emerging technologies on psychosocial, economic, and political areas." He also indicated his desire to pursue a professor position at Georgia State University or a similar employer, where he could continue his research in the "application of machine learning algorithms to understand the psychological correlation between social media use and the cognitive performance ofcollege students, design strategies to assess the impact of social media trends on brand loyalty and switching behavior among young consumers, and publish original information systems research in peer-reviewed journals and conferences."
In response to SCOPS' request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an updated personal statement clarifying his plans. In the revised statement, the Petitioner stated that he now seeks to "continue [his] investigation into designing and developing strategic models that integrate emerging technologies including social media, machine learning, the Internet of Things (IoT), and artificial intelligence (AI) to address critical psychosocial, economic, and societal challenges faced by underserved, disadvantaged, underrepresented, socially excluded and minority groups in the United States." The Petitioner also asserted that he plans to pursue a "research scientist, faculty member, or technology consultant position at Georgia State University, Stanford University, or organizations like RAND Corporation or the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities in the United States."
On appeal, the Petitioner contends, citing to Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994), that SCOPS' failure to consider all relevant evidence submitted is indicative of an abuse of discretion. 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 declares that his "education, expertise, record of success, influence in his field, and future plan have positioned him well" to advance his proposed endeavor. 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 "integrate and examine the impacts of social media, machine learning, the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, and other emerging technologies on psychosocial, economic, and political areas." We further recognize the Petitioner's assertion that his work falls within a critical and emerging technology area, and we acknowledge the importance of progress in STEM fields and the role of individuals 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 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual at F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 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 ofitself, 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 of his role in his research projects; consistent funding from government agencies of his 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 3 "USCTS 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." p. 5 the general alignment of his academic background with his proposed research, a Ph.D. 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 Petitioner highlights his academic credentials, published articles, citation history, expert opinion and support letters, and the publications ofhis research in what he considers to be authoritative venues. He contends that these accomplishments collectively demonstrate his research's significance and support his strong positioning to advance the proposed research endeavor. The Petitioner places particular emphasis on the citation ofhis 56 peer-reviewed journal articles, noting that his publications had received 787 citations by the time of filing, which increased to 1115 by the time he submitted his response to SCOPS' RFE. He also references data indicating that some of his papers ranked among the top 10% most-cited in his field for their year of publication. While the Petitioner's publications have been cited and some have achieved notable citation rankings, citation metrics alone are not determinative of the Petitioner's ability to advance the proposed endeavor in the future.Citation record not persuasive Here, the record lacks evidence that the Petitioner's work has resulted in real-world applications, influenced academic or industry practices, or led to significant policy developments. There is insufficient information that the Petitioner's prior research has been implemented or has influenced his field. We note that Dhanasar did not specifically mandate a showing of influence as a factor to consider whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor; however, the decision also did not limit the factors we may consider. See id. at 890 (identifying factors we consider under the second prong as "including, but not limited to"). In fact, in finding that the petitioner in Dhanasar was well positioned, we relied on, in part, "the significance of the petitioner's research in his field" as corroborated by evidence of peer and government interest in his research and consistent government fonding on his research projects. Id. at 893. Moreover, the USCIS policy guidance identifies evidence of whether the person's work has influenced the field of endeavor as relevant evidence that may demonstrate a petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(l) (providing, as guidance, many examples of evidence that may demonstrate a person is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor).
The Petitioner also submitted data from~--------~ regarding baseline citation rates and percentiles by year of publication for different research fields. However, the documentation fromD 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." 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, independent advisory opm10ns, 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. Further, citation frequency, which may include self-citations, is quantitative in nature and does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis. The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated that the number of citations p. 6 received by his published journals and articles, in and of themselves, reflect a record of success in 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. Rather, in our precedent decision, we found "[t]he petitioner's education, expertise, and experience in his field, the significance ofhis 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 record includes independent advisory opinions and letters of support that discuss the Petitioner's research projects, particularly his research on social media and cyberbullying. The authors note that the Petitioner's research has influenced the works of other scholars in the field. Additionally, the authors state that the Petitioner, through his research, has crafted detailed policy suggestions and proposed a series of recommendations. While these letters are supportive in nature and are positive factors, they do not provide evidence of the practical implementation or real-world application of the Petitioner's research. The letters also lack sufficient, detailed, and concrete examples of how the Petitioner's research has been adopted, applied in practical settings, or changed the course of other research efforts. The authors also do not provide sufficient evidence that the Petitioner's research has been widely accepted or used within the information systems field beyond having been cited by others in their published works.
While the Petitioner indicated an interest in pursuing his research endeavor as a professor at the Georgia State University or similar employer, the Petitioner did not provide evidence of an employer offer from any university, nor evidence of funding for or availability of such a position. The fact that the Petitioner does not currently have such a position weighs against demonstrating either a specific model or plan for future activities or progress toward achieving the endeavor. The Petitioner seeks a national interest waiver ofthe job offer requirement. Therefore, an offer of employment is not a requirement for approval, nor do we consider the lack ofa job offer a negative factor in analyzing the evidence, depending upon the specific circumstances of the case.
However, in this instance, the Petitioner's own stated intention for advancing his endeavor requires an offer of employment, and he has not provided documentary evidence of pursuing this employment or any specific steps taken toward achieving employment. By contrast, the petitioner in Matter ofDhanasar was already employed as a postdoctoral research associate at a university, was performing research and development related to his proposed endeavor at this university and intended to continue to do so. Id. at 891. While a job offer or the existence of funding is not specifically required, we are not precluded from considering the lack of such evidence as a factor in this analysis, particularly given that funding is critical to the Petitioner's research-based endeavor. Id. at 890. Also, in cases such as this one, where the Petitioner does not intend to be self-employed, a job offer or communications with prospective employers, while not required, may be relevant to demonstrate the circumstances or capacity in which the person intends to carry out the endeavor and the feasibility of that plan. 4 Moreover, we do not consider the fact that the Petitioner's prior published works have continued to accumulate citations to be evidence of the Petitioner's own progress toward achieving his endeavor. Without proposed employment in the United States, a statement of interest or support from a university 4 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at 5.F.(D)(l). p. 7 or research institution, evidence of potential funding for such a position, or other such evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he currently has the ability to pursue his proposed endeavor in the United States. 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 ofthe grants. Id. at 893, Fn. 11. Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how he is well positioned to advance his research 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 endeavor. While we recognize that research must add information to the pool ofknowledge 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. Based on our de novo review, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. In considering the record in totality, we, therefore, 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 conclude 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.