(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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver ofthe required job offer, and thus ofa 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
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. Based on the evidence in the record, the Petitioner possesses a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in computer science froml I
The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. Based on our de novo review of the record, we agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar. Specifically, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor as required by the second Dhanasar prong.
The Petitioner stated, in part, that the proposed endeavor is to "continue his research on developing advanced human-in the-loop artificial intelligence-driven frameworks for public health monitoring, and pandemic surveillance in order to enable early pandemic warnings, facilitate record-keeping, support evidence-based decision-making, and provide data-driven suggestions."
A. Second Prong: Well-positioned to Advance Proposed Endeavor The second Dhanasar prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. To determine whether an alien is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to 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, or investors, or other relevant entities or individuals.Past record does not show influence or success Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Furthermore, "USCIS considers an advanced degree, particularly a Doctor ofPhilosophy (Ph.D.), in a STEM field tied to the proposed endeavor and related to work furthering a critical and emerging technology (CET) 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)(4).
The record includes, among other things, the Petitioner's personal statements describing his proposed endeavor, his curriculum vitae, his peer-reviewed publications, research articles citing his research, his Google Scholar citation record, related citation percentile ratings, letters of recommendation, and acknowledgements of his work as a peer reviewer of others' research papers. SCOPS determined that the Petitioner is not well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and we agree.
The Petitioner stated that he is currently empllyed as a tenure-track assistant professor at I I 1 o_w_e_r_e_n_d_o_w_e_,d professor at the school of business.
.______________--r-'~a_n_d_a_-__
The Petitioner also stated he is an._____________, faculty fellow, and his research is centered on "developing AI-augmented public health surveillance systems using social media mining, natural language processing, and machine learning." The Petitioner provided a letter froml Ithat p. 3 explained his duties as assistant professor to include "teaching, research and service, but you will also be expected to advise students and to participate in the normal functioning of our department," and listed the appointment period from July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2026. The Petitioner stated in his personal statement that he will continue his line of work, whether atl lor another academic, research, or public sector institution. However, the evidence of the record indicated that the Petitioner is employed atl I Thus, the Petitioner intends to carry out his research atl lbut the record contains no explicit statement from the univer ity contirming that his full research plans are supported by them. The above-mentioned letter from 1 confirms his employment at the university and generally states that the Petitioner's duties include research, however, this letter and the evidence in the record does not confirm that the Petitioner is permitted to carry out his proposed endeavor atl I Relatedly, the Petitioner has not described with sufficient detail how he intends to carry out his research endeavor at I Iwhile simultaneously working as an assistant professor.Support letters generic or unsupported While his research and teaching position may be interrelated, the Petitioner does not explicitly state what amount of time he will devote to his duties as a professor versus to his research or how the two are connected, if at all. As the record stands, it is unclear if he will simultaneously pursue his research endeavor and work as an assistant professor, or if he lill purre his research endeavor on his own time and without financial and institutional support from Furthermore, while the Petitioner's employment letter froml !indicated his salary is $115,000, the record does not contain evidence to understand if that payment includes his research duties as well as his teaching duties. 2 On appeal, the Petitioner has been regularly invited to conduct peer review for journals and conferences in the field at the time of filing the petition. The Petitioner conducted 4 peer-reviewed journal articles and 10 peer-reviewed conference articles. While this activity may reflect that the Petitioner has developed expertise in his field, service as a peer reviewer is a common activity among researchers and academics and does not, without additional evidence, demonstrate that an individual's work has had a significant impact on the field or that the individual is particularly well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor of national importance.
The record contains factors that weigh in the Petitioner's favor, including his doctorate, master's and bachelor's degrees in STEM fields, the fact that his intended research relates to CET areas important to U.S. competitiveness, his previously published research in journals (IEEE Access, Journal ofRacial and Ethnic Health Disparities, Health Information Science and Systems), 10 peer-reviewed conference articles, and the 131 scholarly citations his research received (at the time of filing). However, these favorable factors alone are insufficient to establish the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, particularly in light of the evidentiary deficiencies related to his funding sources. 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. We also favorably considered the significance ofhis research which had been corroborated by evidence of peer and government interest; the significance of his role in his research projects; consistent funding from 2 To provide more context, if the Petitioner is compensated at $115,000 for only his teaching duties, the record is silent as to how he will fund his research, which is central to our second prong analysis. Moreover, if $115,000 includes both research and teaching duties, it is unclear if he will receive additional compensation to cany out his research or if he is working under another researcher's grant. Again, this information is central to our understanding ofwhether the Petitioner is well-positioned to cany out the proposed endeavor. p. 4 government agencies ofhis research projects; and his position with a U.S. university where he intended to conduct his proposed research work. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 892-93. While not all research endeavors will include the exact same evidence, it is important to highlight the evidentiary burden carried by petitioners seeking a national interest waiver.
Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated a consistent level of interest in research fonding or interest from government agencies to pursue his proposed endeavor.No interest from users, customers or investors The Petitioner has not provided sufficient details to understand the fonding sources at his disposal to carry out his research. Although the Petitioner previously received a stipend and grants, the record does not provide a level of detail necessary to understand whether the research grants contain ongoing fonding support, or if the grants were limited to the research already conducted. Moreover, the record does not sufficiently evidence if the Petitioner has obtained his own grants as a principal investigator, and whether any grant money he has received enables him to carry out his future research, regardless of his affiliation wit~ Given that he is currently employed atl I it is unclear what the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would look like independent of his position atl I
As to the Petitioner's 131 citations his most cited ublication ~---------------------------------~,"published in 2021, received 56 citations. The Petitioner does not specify how many citations for each of these individual articles were self-citations by him or his coauthors. Although we do not diminish the Petitioner's academic accomplishments and apparent stellar reputation among his research colleagues, we note that many of the citations appear to come from only a handful of researchers, which does not establish the level of impact or interest in the Petitioner's research endeavor that he purports his research has garnered.
The Petitioner's bibliometrics evidence is unpersuasive to establish the significance of his citation record and research to the larger field of computer science for the following reasons. The statistics are quantitative in nature and do not reveal the reasons for the citations, which would involve a qualitative analysis to corroborate his assertion that his research is highly impactfol and valuable. As such, the Petitioner has not sufficiently corroborated his assertion that his research citation record underscores a record of success in his field.Citation record not persuasive
For all these reasons, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish the long-term feasibility of his proposed endeavor or evidence demonstrating he has the means or financial support to undertake his proposed research in the United States.
Because the documentation in the record does not establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor as required by the second prong ofthe Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the first and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. 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).
I
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. 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. § 103.5(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 1-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.