The Petitioner, an artificial intelligence (AI) researcher, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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).
USCIS denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not qualify for classification as an individual of exceptional ability and 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. 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 afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter a/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. 1 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 of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 1 The Petitioner does not claim eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. While he received the foreign equivalent of a U.S. Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science in July 2019, the record does not show that he had accumulated five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in his specialty (as the equivalent of a master's degree) at the time of filing. Accordingly, he has not demonstrated eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Regardless, the Petitioner's appeal does not argue that he qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Accordingly, we deem this issue abandoned. See Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-2731 , 2011 WL 4711885 at* 1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). p. 2 degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id.
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 2 Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. If a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree ofexpertise and will substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States. Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act.
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) ofthe 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, 3 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
USCIS concluded that the Petitioner did not qualify for classification as an individual of exceptional ability and that he had not satisfied the first and third prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework.
A Exceptional Ability
The Petitioner asserted that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 4 In denying the petition, USCIS determined that the Petitioner fulfilled only the official academic record criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). In the appeal brief, the Petitioner maintains that he also meets the membership in professional associations criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) and the recognition for achievements and significant contributions 2 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii).
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that the submitted documentation does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria.
1. Official Academic Record
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) requires "[a]n official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability." We agree that the Petitioner's bachelor's degree in computer science from I I(2019) meets this criterion.
2. Membership
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) requires "[e]vidence of membership in professional associations." We agree with the Petitioner that his membership in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Computer Society meets this criterion. Accordingly, we withdraw the USCIS' determination on this issue.
3. Recognition for Achievements and Significant Contributions
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) requires "[e]vidence ofrecognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations." The record includes documentation of the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, published and presented work, and peer review service. The Petitioner also offered evidence ofarticles that cited to his published work, citation metrics, and letters of support discussing his research projects. In their letters supporting the petition, the Petitioner's references discussed his undergraduate and graduate research projects. 5 For example, regarding the Petitioner's work involving the impact of emoji usage in social media and its relationship to market trends, Dr. J-S-, an assistant professor at I IUniversity and coauthor with the Petitioner, stated that their research "addressed the challenge of analyzing how emojis influence digital engagement and market predictions through advanced machine-learning techniques" by "using regression and autoregressive models." While Dr. J-S- indicated that the Petitioner's "work provided practical tools to enhance digital ecosystems by improving the detection of low-quality content and advancing the predictive analysis of social media trends," he did not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's findings have been utilized in the AI field. Nor has the Petitioner otherwise demonstrated that his work constitutes achievements and significant contributions to the AI industry or field.
Likewise, Dr. S-J-, an associate professor at I IUniversity and coauthor with the Petitioner, asserted that they collaborated on analyzing "emoji usage and other behavioral patterns on social media" and "introduced an array of machine learning models to assess how emojis influence various domains." Dr. S-J- stated that their work determined "how emojis affect tweet popularity and audience engagement" and enabled them "to predict stock trading volumes for certain companies 5 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. p. 4 based on the frequency of emojis in tweets," but he did not offer specific examples of how their findings have affected others in the AI field, or otherwise show achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field.
In addition, with respect to the Petitioner's work relating to breast cancer classification using vision transformers (ViTs), Dr. F-F-, a machine learning engineer at I l stated that the Petitioner undertook research aimed at enhancing "the diagnostic accuracy of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC)" and "successfully integrated supervised contrastive learning with ViT models, enabling the detection of subtle histopathological patterns often missed by traditional methods." While Dr. F-F- asserted that the Petitioner's "project provided a reliable framework that was directly applicable in clinical settings, assisting pathologists in accurately diagnosing IDC from histopathological images," he did not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work improved the efficiency and precision of breast cancer diagnostics or otherwise showed achievements and significant contributions to the AI industry or field.
Furthermore, Dr. E-V-, a data scientist atl Iindicated that the Petitioner "pioneered a new approach to facilitate the classification of breast cancer, specifically in the form of IDC." Dr. E-Vstated that the Petitioner "leveraged a ViT model and paired this with a supervised contrastive learning technique" and "employed contrastive learning to train the model, substantially elevating its accuracy in differentiating between malignant and benign samples." Additionally, Dr. E-V- wrote that multiple research teams have cited to the Petitioner's research paper on this topic, but the Petitioner has not shown that the response to his findings and the level ofinterest in his work are indicative ofrecognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field.No interest from users, customers or investors
The Petitioner contends that his research has been published "in Cell Reports, a prestigious journal with an impact factor of7.5 and ranked third in Molecular Biology and third in Cell Biology by Google Scholar." He presented "Google Scholar Metrics" rankings for this publication based on its h5-index, but he has not demonstrated how publication in a life sciences journal shows recognition in the field of AI.Citation record not persuasive Regardless, that a publication bears a high 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 that publication in a highly ranked journal equates to recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field.
As it relates to the citation of his work, the Petitioner presented his Google Scholar profiles from January 2025 and, in response to USCIS' request for evidence, from June 2025. The most recent profile indicated that his four highest cited articles entitled I t' (2024) "I
research field. The Petitioner contends that "two of [his] publications had received enough citations to rank among the top 20% of the most-cited articles in Computer Science in their respective years of publication, including one reaching the top 10% percent of this category." Here, the Petitioner relies on citation information concerning the larger field of computer science and compares his citation frequency in AI to that of the larger field. While we acknowledge that AI is part of the larger field of computer science, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence confirming that information extrapolated from the larger field applies equally to each subfield within computer science, including AI. Thus, the Petitioner's comparison of his citation number in his field with information regarding citation in the larger field of computer science does not sufficiently establish the significance of his achievements or contributions in the field of AI.
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted an article in Scientometrics written by Lutz Bornmann and Werner Marx, entitled "How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations." This article presents recommendations for "how to evaluate individual researchers in the natural and life sciences" for purposes of funding and promotion or hiring decisions. The authors state that "publications which are among the 10% most cited publications in their subject area are as a rule called highly cited or excellent" and that "the top 10% based excellence indicator" should be given "the highest weight when comparing the scientific performance of single researchers." While the authors offer proposed methods for bibliometric analysis of research performance, the record does not indicate that their methods have been accepted and implemented by the academic community. Moreover, with respect to citation information from Google Scholar, the authors advise against "using Google Scholar (GS) as a basis for bibliometric analysis. Several studies have pointed out that GS has numerous deficiencies for research evaluation."
Regardless, citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis. In other words, a high citation number might show that others in the field have noticed the Petitioner's work, but it does not confirm that his work has impacted or advanced the field of in such a way that demonstrates recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field. Regarding a qualitative analysis of the citations to the Petitioner's work the record contains co ies of articles that cited to his a ers includin his a er entitled ' __________________ _, " for example). These articles include the text of the citation, which the Petitioner asserts highlight the impact of his papers. While we agree with the Petitioner that these citations indicate some degree of interest in his research from his colleagues and peers in the field, this evidence is not sufficient to show recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the AI industry or field. The articles in the record cite to his work as an example of research done in the field or in their introduction section as part of an overview of current research, but none highlight or comment upon his research in a way that demonstrates recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field.
With respect to his peer review activit the Petitioner resented a certificate indicatin that he reviewed one paper for the 7th
I (2024). He has n._o_t_d_e_m_o_n_s_t_ra_t-ed-,-h-o_w_e_v_e-r,-th_a_t_t_h-is-in_s_t-an_c_e_o_f_p_a_rt_i_c_ip-a-ti_o_n_1_· n-th__.e widespread peer review process shows recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the AI industry or field.
I
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during his graduate and undergraduate studies, but he has not shown that his work rises to the level of achievements and significant contributions to the AI field. 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 have had achievements that have significantly contributed to their industry or field. Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his work constitutes achievements and significant contributions to the field sufficient to satisfy the requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). For the reasons set forth above, the Petitioner has not shown that he meets at least three of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and has achieved the level of expertise required for exceptional ability classification. 7Exceptional ability not established
B. National Interest Waiver
The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. As previously outlined, in order to qualify for a national interest waiver, the Petitioner must first show that he qualifies for classification under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability. The Petitioner has not shown that he is an advanced degree professional or that he has satisfied the regulatory criteria and achieved the level of expertise required for exceptional ability classification. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not reach, and therefore reserve, the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical 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).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not established that he satisfies the regulatory requirements for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 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.
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.S(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.