The Petitioner, a computer scientist 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. § 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 ofthe 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 of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo '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.
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, 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 continue her research on developing "algorithms and machine learning models in order to identify and solve complex healthcare challenges." 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 proposed endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The proposed 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.
In denying the petition, SCOPS found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. SCOPS determined, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor's national importance, that she is well positioned to advance it, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification On appeal, the Petitioner contends that SCOPS abused its discretion by failing to properly evaluate the submitted evidence under the correct standard of proof and applied a "heightened standard." The Petitioner further contends that SCOPS did not thoroughly review the evidence and improperly disregarded relevant information including recommendation letters and expert opinions.
The Petitioner states that she seeks to design artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to solve problems across various fields with a particular focus on medical research and healthcare data. The Petitioner explains that her project will focus on developing "sophisticated algorithms for graph and network analysis, specifically tailored for applications in healthcare such as precision medicine, drug interaction modeling, and drug discovery." We withdraw SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong. As evidence that her proposed research in the field of computer science has substantial merit and national importance, the Petitioner presented evidence including a personal statement describing the proposed endeavor and future plans, peer-reviewed journal articles, independent advisory opinions, and industry reports and articles. The Petitioner also provided probative letters of support from experts in the field describing the Petitioner's past research and contributions to the computer science field. Moreover, the Petitioner presented evidence indicating the dissemination ofher past research to others in the field through articles and journals and that her proposed endeavor has the potential to advance a critical and 2 The Petitioner earned a Doctor of Philosophy degree (Ph.D.) in computer science from the I ~n 2022, and a master's degree in electrical and computer engineering in 2017. ~------~ p. 3 emerging technology field. USCIS recognizes the importance of progress in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, especially in focused critical and emerging technologies important to U.S. competitiveness or national security. See generally 6 USC] S Policy Manual, F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed research, she has established that she 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.
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was employed as a postdoctoral researcher at I She expressed an interest in pursuing a research scientist position at Google or a similar emjloyer. On appeal, the Petitioner states that she is now employed as an applied scientist at I _ where she claims to have increased access to a broader range of projects across the technology industry. The Petitioner contends that SCOPS disregarded "almost all the evidence demonstrating her considerable success and ongoing research in the United States advancing her endeavor, giving no attention to her peer review service or her publications in reputable conferences that are highly cited." The Petitioner farther argues, 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).
Here, SCOPS' decision reflects consideration of the evidence the Petitioner claims was disregarded and includes a discussion of why the record did not establish the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. While the Petitioner generally asserts that the totality ofthe evidence is sufficient to satisfy Dhanasar 's second prong, upon a de novo review of the record, we agree with SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner has not established she meets Dhanasar 's second prong. p. 4 The Petitioner maintains that her "education, experience, expertise, documented record of success, influence in her field, and her future plan have altogether well positioned her" to advance the proposed endeavor. The record includes documentation of the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, academic transcripts, published and presented work, co-authored articles, and peer review service. The Petitioner also offered evidence of articles that cited to her published work, citation metrics, independent advisory reports, industry reports and articles, ridence of nast fonding sources, and letters of support discussing her past research at the University !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 her proposed endeavor to develop "algorithms and machine learning models in order to identify and solve complex healthcare challenges." We further recognize the Petitioner's assertion that her 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 We therefore agree with the Petitioner that we consider her Ph.D. in a STEM field tied to her 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 892-93. When evaluated in the context of the full record, the Petitioner has not shown that she is well positioned to advance her 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 ofhis research projects; and his position with a U.S. university where he intended to conduct his proposed research work. Id. at 892-93 . Here, while we recognize the Petitioner's advanced degree and the general alignment of her academic background with her proposed research, a Ph.D. and a record ofpublications are not, on their own, sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is particularly well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner asserts that her work has generated responses including five peer-reviewed conference articles, one conference abstract, one preprint, and that one of her papers ranked among the top 20% most-cited articles in the computer science field for its year of publication. However, 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.
Correspondingly, 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's publication and citation record also do not demonstrate that her "research has set her apart from her peers" as claimed or establish continued access to the resources and institutional support necessary to advance the proposed endeavor.Citation record not persuasive The Petitioner initially provided evidence from Google Scholar reflecting she published seven coauthored and two first-authored articles. Two of her seven coauthored articles received 15 citations total, with her highest cited coauthored article receiving nine citations. In response to SCOPS' request for evidence, the Petitioner provided updated Google Scholar figures reflecting 29 citations total, with her highest cited coauthored article receiving 10 citations. Even so, the Petitioner's first-authored articles received no citations.
The Petitioner also submitted data froml Iregarding baseline citation rates and ~entiles by year of publication for the computer science field. However, the documentation from LJcautions 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." While we agree with the Petitioner that the citations, independent advisory opinions, and recommendation letters indicate some degree of interest in her research from her 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 her 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 her published coauthored articles, in and of themselves, reflect a record of success in similar efforts to meet Dhanasar 's second prong.
The record also contains recommendation letters that broadly describe the Petitioner's academic background and research contributions and highlight the Petitioner's work in areas such as geometric algorithms, metric learning, graph analysis, and computational geometry. The Petitioner also submitted independent advisory opinions that praise the Petitioner's research projects and maintain that her research endeavor will benefit the United States and that she is positioned to advance her endeavor. However, the authors of these letters and opinions do not provide sufficient detail explaining the significance ofthe Petitioner's past research, or how it has affected the field or industry to demonstrate a history of accomplishment and success and progress towards achieving her proposed endeavor. For instance, the letters do not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field or otherwise constitutes a record of success beyond having been cited by others in their published works.
The Petitioner emphasizes her prior work experience includin~ her postdoctoral research at I University, recommendation letters, and her current position at Iand claims that her current employment demonstrates "the field's ongoing interest in her research." However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated how she plans to carry out her proposed research activities. For example, the Petitioner has not provided evidence of progress toward achieving the specific goals of her proposed endeavor, nor has she shown that there is established interest in her future research despite her arguments that getting the job offer from I lindicates the field's interest in her research endeavor. Similarly, the Petitioner has not published any articles or journals since 2022. The I
Petitioner, therefore, has not sufficiently explained how she is well positioned to advance her research endeavor while working for I I
The Petitioner declares that she has received fonding from the National Science Foundation in support of her prior work. However, the Petitioner has not shown that she was the primary award recipient or principal investigator. Furthermore, the record lacks sufficient detail regarding the Petitioner's special role or responsibilities in securing these fonds. While the record shows that the Petitioner participated in projects that received fonding, without clear documentation of her contributions to the fonding process, it cannot be concluded that these awards are indicative ofher individual merit or her capacity to independently advance significant research endeavors. By contrast, in Dhanasar, we noted that the petitioner had received "consistent" government fonding of research projects in which he played a "significant" role, specifically that he initiated or was the primary award contact on several fonded grant proposals and was the only listed researcher on many of the grants. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893, Fn. 11. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor has garnered interest or support from government agencies, private entities, or academic institutions.No interest from users, customers or investors Although the Petitioner's involvement in fonded research projects is favorable, the evidence submitted does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to independently secure fonding or lead the advancement of her proposed endeavor.
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research, but she has not shown that this work renders her well positioned to advance her proposed research. While we recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way to be accepted for publication, presentation, fonding, 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 her past publications and her current employment will allow her to continue to advance her proposed research as described in the record. 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 she meets the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not shown that she 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 she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.