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. § 1 l 53(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. 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.
The Petitioner contends that as an expert in the field of computational fluid dynamics, his proposed endeavor is to continue research to develop advanced mathematical models and computational algorithms for energy-efficient thermal management systems, focusing on enhancing heat transfer performance in industrial cooling and renewable energy applications, in order to revolutionize thermal management solutions and drive significant improvements in energy efficiency, sustainability, and cost-effectiveness.
A. 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.
On appeal, the Petitioner also argues, citing Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1226 (E.D. Mich. 1994), that SCOPS failed to consider all the relevant evidence. 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 of Chawathe, 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).
The Petitioner asserts that his advanced degrees, research experience, and professional experience demonstrate that hie is well positioned to carry out the proposed endeavor. The record includes, among other things, documentation of the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, diploma and credential evaluation, p. 3 and published and presented work. The Petitioner also offered evidence of articles that cited to his published work, citation metrics, and letters of support discussing his 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 further argues that SCOPS did not properly analyze his published and presented work, citation evidence, letters of support, education, research funding, and peer review service.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 of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
In letters supporting the petition, the Petitioner's references discussed his research projects involving heat transfer and fluid dynamics. 2 For example, M-R-, a senior researcher at I I asserted that the Petitioner "conducted an in-depth investigation into magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) nanofluid heat transfer," and another "research endeavor" focused on the "influence of G-jitter, a periodic acceleration encountered in space environments, on nonNewtonian fluid dynamics." While M-R- stated that the Petitioner's findings "open new opportunities for large-scale manufacturing, expanding industries such as biotechnology, telecommunications, and aerospace engineering in the United States," he did not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings are being utilized to improve these three distinct fields. 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. M-I-, associate professor atl I, described the Petitioner as a leading expert in computational fluid dynamics and that his research focuses on improving thermal efficiency in solar energy and industrial cooling systems through nanofluids. He further stated that the Petitioner's work is "essential for US industries to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, lower maintenance costs, and advance sustainable energy solutions across various sectors." While the letter provides a description of the Petitioner' research activities, it does not sufficiently establish how his work has affected the industries or whether his findings have been adopted, implemented, or otherwise influenced the industries, or shows success or progress at a level that renders him well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner contends that he has published 13 peer-reviewed journal articles (5 of them firstauthored and one acce ted eer-reviewed article in " restigious venues." He explained that has an impact factor of 6.4 andl I
citations, respectively. The Petitioner does not specify how many citations for each ofthese individual articles were self-citations by him or his coauthors.
The Petitioner also provided 2025 data from Clarivate Analytics (In Cites Essential Science Indicators) regarding baseline citation rates and percentiles by year of publication for the engineering research field. The Petitioner contends he has coauthored three papers that rank among the top 10% and one paper that ranks among the top 20% most-cited articles in engineering for their respective years of publication. But the Petitioner relies on citation information concerning the larger field of engineering and does not compare his citation frequency in mathematics and computational fluid dynamics to that of engineering. The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence confirming that information extrapolated from the larger field of engineering applies to his specific field. Thus, this evidence does not sufficiently establish the level of his success or impact in the field of advanced mathematical models and computational fluid dynamics.
Regarding a qualitative analysis of the citations to the Petitioner's work, the record contains partial copies of articles that cited to his papers. 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 his work as an example of research done in the field 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 on appeal 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 doctorate degree in mathematics renders 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. 3 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 their proposed endeavor and education is merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding.
The Petitioner has not demonstrated a consistent level of interest in research funding or interest from government agencies in pursuing his proposed endeavor.No interest from users, customers or investors The Petitioner has not provided sufficient details to understand the funding sources at his disposal to carry out his research. And, while we acknowledge that some of his research articles contain an acknowledgement that the research was supported through REFRESH, these short references do not provide the level of detail necessary to understand whether the research grants contain ongoing funding support, or if the grants were limited to the research already conducted in the published material. Moreover, the record is silent regarding whether 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. By contrast, in Dhanasar, we noted that the petitioner had received "consistent" government funding of research projects in which he played a "significant" role, specifically that he initiated or was the primary award contact on several funded grant proposals and was the only listed researcher on many of the grants. Id. at 893, Fn. 11. Here, although the Petitioner's involvement in funded research is favorable, the evidence submitted does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to independently secure funding or lead the advancement of his proposed endeavor.
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during his career, 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 work constitutes a record ofsuccess or progress 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 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).
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 ofdiscretion. 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 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.