The Petitioner 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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that be 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 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) 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
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
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 ofthe 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 data scientist intern at I Iand pursuing his Ph.D. in Digital Transformation and Innovation at the I He stated that his "proposed endeavor is to develop and apply novel bio-inspired feature reduction algorithms to efficiently manage high-dimensional data in order to improve the accuracy and scalability of anomaly detection in domains such as finance, healthcare, and manufacturing." The Petitioner further indicated that his planned research topics include "[ e ]nhancing heat treatment processes through machine learning" and "[s]urrogate-assisted bio-inspired feature selection for real-time anomaly detection for high-dimensional data."
As 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 of the Proposed Endeavor
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 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. We agree with SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit.
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We withdraw SCOPS' conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong. As evidence that his proposed research has substantial merit and national importance, the Petitioner presented information about the benefits of data integrity and cybersecurity. He also provided letters of support discussing how his undertaking helps contribute to advancements in applied machine learning. Additionally, the Petitioner submitted documentation indicating that the benefit of his proposed research offers broader implications in the field of machine learning, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through scientific journals and conferences. As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial 2 The Petitioner received a Master of Science degree in Business Information Systems (2019) froJ.__________. ._______
~in Germany.
merit and national importance ofhis 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. Id. 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.
The record includes documentation of the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, master's degree, published and presented work, and fonding sources. The Petitioner also offered evidence of articles that cited to his published work, citation metrics, and letters of support discussing his graduate research. The Petitioner contends on appeal that SCOPS did not correctly evaluate evidence in the record, and that this evidence establishes he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner farther argues that SCOPS did not properly analyze his published and presented work, citation evidence, letters of support, education, and research fonding.Citation record not persuasive For the reasons discussed below, the record supports SCOPS' determination that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under the second prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework.
In letters supporting the petition, the Petitioner's references discussed his graduate research projects involving applied machine leaming.4 For example, Dr. K-R-, a professor at I I I Istated that the Petitioner categorized "bio-inspired methods into swarm intelligence-based, evolutionary, and hybrid approaches, employing performance analysis to assess their strengths in dimensionality reduction, predictive accuracy, and computational efficiency across key domains." Dr. K-R- farther asserted that the Petitioner's "findings revealed that swarm-based algorithms dominated the field, appearing in 28 of 38 studies, with these methods proving particularly effective in reducing data dimensionality while maintaining predictive performance, especially in healthcare diagnostics and industrial monitoring," but he did not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings have been utilized in the machine learning field. Nor has the Petitioner otherwise demonstrated that his research findings constitute a record of success or progress rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
In addition, Dr. J-A-L-, a professor atl Iindicated that the Petitioner "systematically reviewed bio-inspired feature-reduction methods, isolating algorithms that emulate processes seen in nature" and that his work uncovered "the most useful measurements in large, complex data sets without overburdening computer systems." While Dr. J-A-L- stated that the Petitioner's "findings improve diagnostic workflows in medicine, enable early fault detection in industry, and serve as a guide for data-reduction tools," he did not offer specific examples of how the 4 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. p. 4 Petitioner's work has affected the field, or otherwise shows success or progress at a level that renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
Furthermore, Dr. X-Y-, an associate professor atl Iasserted that the Petitioner reviewed "bio-inspired feature reduction techniques for high-dimensional data" and "clarified important trade-offs between accuracy, interpretability, and computational cost, offering practitioners practical guidance on algorithm selection for different problem contexts." Dr. X-Y- additionally wrote that he and others have cited the Petitioner's research paper on this topic in their own work, but the Petitioner has not shown that this level of interest in his work or his record of success in research is sufficient to demonstrate he is well positioned.No interest from users, customers or investors
The Petitioner contends that he has published "3 first-authored, peer-reviewed articles" in "such prominent venues as IEEE Access."5 He provided information from Google Scholar listing IEEE Access as the top-ranked journal in "Engineering & Computer Science." 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.
As it relates to the citation of his work, the Petitioner presented his Google Scholar profiles from June 2025 and, in response to SCOPS' request for evidence RFE from ctober 2025. The most recent rofile indicated that his three articles, entitle
' 2023
..,..__________________________"""'2:::....::.;025), andc=J ,..______________________________, (2024) each
purposes of fonding 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." Moreover, regarding "self-citations," the authors state that "if the question of an evaluation study explicitly means to what extent a scientist has influenced other scientists' work, self-citations should be obviously ignored."
The Petitioner's RFE response included OpenAlex author metrics which he claims compare his citation impact to that of other researchers in the field of "Computer science." Again, the Petitioner relies on citation information concerning the larger field ofcomputer science and compares his citation frequency in machine learning to that of the larger field, but he has not shown that information extrapolated from the larger field applies equally to each subfield within computer science, including machine learning. 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 renders him well positioned. '------------------------------'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 demonstrate a level of interest or a record of research success that renders him well positioned. 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 he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner argues that he has a stronger citation record than Dr. Dhanasar, the petitioner in our Dhanasar precedent decision. 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, experience, and expertise in his field, the significance of his role in research projects, as well as the sustained interest of and fonding 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.
As it relates to the Petitioner's education, while his master's degree renders him eligible for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by p. 6 themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 6 In Dhanasar, the record established that the petitioner held multiple graduate degrees including "two master of science degrees, in mechanical engineering and applied physics, as well as a Ph.D. in engineering." Id. at 891. We look to a variety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and education is merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding.
The Petitioner also asserts that he has received support for his work from "major funding sources." In support of his claim, the Petitioner submits the three research papers he coauthored Dr. B-R- which each contain an acknowledgement noting that their work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. In Dhanasar, the record established that the petitioner "initiated" or was "the primary award contact on several funded grant proposals" and that he was "the only listed researcher on many of the grants." Id. at 893, n.11. Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than his professor Dr. B-R-) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects.
Regarding the Petitioner's future plans, his RFE response stated: "One of the major research projects I will pursue under Dr. K-R- at thel lis the development of real-time anomaly detection systems for cybersecurity, as outlined in his Letter of Intent to hire me as a postdoctoral researcher." In the Letter oflntent, Dr. K-R- indicated that the Petitioner's postdoctoral position is "contingent upon funding availability and institutional approvals" and that the "letter is non-binding and does not constitute a formal job offer."
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during his graduate studies, but he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 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 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 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 sufficiently demonstrated that his graduate work constitutes a record of success or progress in applied machine learning research rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. As the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Conclusion
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 third prong 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).
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.