The Petitioner, an aerospace 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 Texas 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 additional documentation and a brief asserting that he is eligible for a national interest waiver. 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 dismiss 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 United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In performing 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 framework. 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 Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a research engmeer in the School of Aerospace Engineeringat._____________________ 5 A Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor The Petitioner indicated that he intends to continue his research involving 'I Istructural designs, multidisciplinary strategies, analysis, optimization, surrogate modeling techniques, and effective computational! Itools." He asserted that his proposed research is aimed at "the application ofl Inetwork techniques, which are developed through! l to aerospace engmeenng problems." The Petitioner farther stated that his undertaking involves developing ' ~ - - - - - - - - algorithms," applying 'c=J learning techniques to engineering surrogate modeling," and designing "intelligent aerospace/infrastructural systems."
The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. For example, the Petitioner presented a strategic plan from the U.S. National Science and Technology Council discussing the research and development investments needed to help define and advance policies that ensure the responsible, safe, and beneficial use of artificial intelligence. He also provided information about employment in the U.S. aerospace and defense industry and the number ofjobs supported by the industry. In addition, the record includes documentation indicating that the benefit of the Petitioner's proposed research has broader implications, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through engineering journals and conferences. As the Petitioner has documented both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed aerospace engineering research, we agree with the Director's determination 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 Petitioner. The record includes documentation of his curriculum vitae, academic credentials, published articles, conference to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.
Analysis
The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 4 The Petitioner received a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering rrom.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,in May 2012. As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer rrom a specific employer. However, we will consider information about his 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 analytical framework.
See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these~th_r.e._e_p_r_o_n,g.s. p. 4 presentations, and peer review activity. He also offered evidence of articles that cited to his published work, and letters of support discussing his past research projects.
The Petitioner contends on appeal that he "has provided evidence ofhis expertise, his education, skills and knowledge." He maintains that "[h]e has a demonstrated and documented record of success, and his work has attracted the interest ofrelevant entities and individuals." The Petitioner farther indicates that that he provided letters of support from "highly respected leaders in the field" attesting to his research contributions. For the reasons discussed below, the record supports the Director's determination that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research under Dhanasar's second prong.
In letters su porting the petition, several references discussed the Petitioner's research projects at . . . = = = ~ = = ! . : . . · 6~ F o r e x a m p l e , I f , s e n i o r p r o c e s s l e a d e r a t . _ _ . , - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - ' indicated that the Petitioner was "primary inventor" of the tool, a web ~a_p_p_li_c-at-io_n_u-se~d to monitor and L'redictl Ienergy usage. ~ - - - - ~ xp amea that "[t]he premise behind thel jtool was developed over the course of numerous research projects, launching its first version in 2013." He farther stated: " T h e Petitioner] and his peers proposed a I Iapproach to model, simulate, and forecast the electricit demand by factoring in available time information and weather data." Additionally, ~ - - - - ~ a s s e r t e d that the Petitioner "contributed to the development of efficient data analytic techniques to glean key information from a large pool ofdata, ultimately shedding new light on the way theI Iconsumes energy." I Ialso claimed that the Petitioner's methods "can be extended to the energy sector," but he does not offer specific examples of their application by organizations in that sector. Nor has the Petitioner shown thatl Ihas been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in the field.
Furthermore, , chief scientist in the .--~--------------------' a t ~ - - - - ~ stated: "Under the sponsorship o f ~ - - - - ~ [ the Petitioner] facilitated numerous research projects to predict the future of sensory measurements in infrastructural s stems, such as building energy consumption." Regarding the Petitioner's development o~f====+""_ _ _ _ _ ___. based analysis techniques for large scalel Inetworks, indicated that he " a s s i s t e d i n t h e c r e a t i o n o f a ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,,...,..,network m o d e l u s i n _ _ _ _ ~ ' I I asserted that the Petitioner's "model enabled the precise exploration of design spaces formed from ~ - - - - - - - - - . - o tions and operational settings. Moreover, the model can be farther adapted ...........' - - - - , data which will result in relevant information on an operating! I and calibrated to real
I Isystem." While~--~contended that based on the Petitioner's 1 Ibaseline, future research studies can identify new technology additions and improve I Isystem performance," the Petitioner has not shown that hisl Iwork stands to be utilized for analyzing I Isystems beyond t h e ~ - - - - - - - ~ has affected the aerospace engineering field, or otherwise constitutes a record o f success in his area o f research.
While we discuss a sampling ofthese letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. i.__ _ _ _ __.6oted that he "worked extensively with [the Pe;:.:t;:;..:it.:;.:;io;.:;;:n.=..:e1'-..l.·]....::o""n....::a;~--__,,.....c.=om=b=in=e=d--=c.....,cle power plant predictive analysis tool" as part of the I Iproject at! !for which "was Program Manager."
With respect to the Petitioner's research involving application of a .___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____. ..c=J to predictI Ilift coefficient,I Iprofessor of mechanical engineering at L_Juniversity, asserted that the Petitioner "collaboratively trained multip~structures to learn the lift coefficients of th~ Iwith numerous shapes in multiple flow ~ u m b e r s , I ) I numbers and verse I I" I Ifurther stated that "[t]he outcomes of this study lay the groundwork for future research in aerospace engineerinr and related fields, specifically researchers interested in harnessing well-developed! ]techniques in image recognition tasks for elgineerTgl !tasks," but he does not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's has generated positive interest among relevant parties, has been utilized in the aerospace industry, or otherwise represents a record of success in his field.
In regard to the Petitioner's work on thel loroject, g ~----~directoroftheI IatI 0 indl'cate<l that tve Petitioner was responsible for developmg and conflrmmg the mathematical model for_ =- hilt-Rotor performance.I lstated that the Petitioner "created a prototypical model of the I Iclass" and "proposed an original method td Itwo distinct flight modes by unifying the logic for measuring! I [The Petitioner's]! I model resulted i~ Iestimations of all performance metrics, such as fuel bums, payload weight, cruise speed, and range." The record includes a Google Scholar citation report indicating that the aforementioned work presented at the0American Institute ofAeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Aviation Technol~ntegration, and Operations Conferencd ,Ihas received three citations since its publication inl__J The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that this number of citations constitutes a record o f success or a level o f interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong.
As it relates to the citation of the Petitioner's work, his appellate submission includes June 2019 information from Google Scholar indicating that his three highest cited articles in AIAA/American Society ofCivil Engineers/American Helicopter Society/American Societyfor Composites Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference (2018), American Society ofMechanical Engineers 8th International Conference on Energy Sustainability (2014), and International Conference on Big Mining and Big Data (2016) each received 12, 5, and 4 citations, respectively. The Petitioner does not specify how many citations for each of his individual articles were self-citations by him or his coauthors. Moreover, he does not indicate how many of the citations occurred in papers published prior to or at the time of initial filing. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Nor does the Petitioner offer comparative statistics showing the significance of this level of citation within his field.
Regarding his peer review activity, the Petitioner provided an email indicating that he was invited to review a paper for Applied Energy in I 12018, but he did not provide evidence showing that he completed the review. In addition, the invitation post-dates the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Regardless, the Petitioner has not documented the stature of this journal or offered other documentation demonstrating that his peer review experience rises to the level of rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed aerospace engineering research. Nor does the record show that the Petitioner's occasional participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in his field or that it is otherwise an indication that he is well positioned to advance his research endeavor.
Additionally, while the Petitioner's Ph.D. froml Irenders him eligible for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
The evidence indicates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research while working at I Ibut 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 in order 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 his proposed endeavor. Rather, we examine the factors set forth in Dhanasar to determine whether, for instance, the individual's progress towards achieving the goals of the proposed research, record of success in similar efforts, or generation of interest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890. The Petitioner, however, has not shown that his published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the aerospace engineering field or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the engineering community.Past record does not show influence or success Nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that his work constitutes a record of success or progress in machine learning, surrogate modeling, and intelligent aerospace/infrastructural systems design. As the record is insufficient to show that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.
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. Here, the Petitioner claims that he is eligible for a waiver due to his research experience and accomplishments, the importance of his field, and the impracticality of labor certification. However, as the Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor as required by the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose.
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. 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.