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).
The Director of the 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 she 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
The Director 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. At the time of filinJ the Petitioner was working as a graduate research assistant at I I I . She indicated that she is pursuing her Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering atc=J and that her researc is aimed at developing "computational models and digital twins to simulate the mechanisms of health conditions caused by genetics and environmental factors and enable personalized medicine." The Petitioner stated: "My proposed endeavor is to develop mechanically informed computational models and digital twins to stimulate, analyze, and elucidate mechanisms of health conditions caused by genetics and environmental factors and thereby enable personalized medicine for their more accurate diagnosis, treatment, and management." She farther asserted that her work atOinvolves "integrating a connectome model ofthe brain into the 3D geometry ofa brain to build a physics-informed model of the biomarker abnormality progression in Alzheimer's disease." 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 prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas 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. Id. at 889.
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed endeavor. The record supports this conclusion. For example, the Petitioner has submitted documentation indicating that the benefit of her proposed research has broader implications for the field, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through scientific journals and conferences. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner 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. We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not established she meets Dhanasar 's second prong.
The record includes documentation of the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, master's degree, published and presented work, and peer review service. The Petitioner also offered evidence of articles that cited to her published work, citation metrics, and letters of support discussing her graduate research ate=] andl I
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director did not properly evaluate evidence in the record, and that this evidence establishes she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner farther argues that the Director did not properly analyze her published and presented work, citation evidence, letters of support, education, research fonding, and peer review service.Citation record not persuasive 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 her proposed endeavor under the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
In letters supporting the petition, the Petitioner's references discussed her graduate research projects involving biomechanical engineering. For example, Dr. J-W-, an assistant professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at D indicated that the Petitioner "employed advanced computational simulations to elucidate the pathological processes" involved in Alzheimer's disease. 4 He farther asserted that her work "achieved accurate simulations of Alzheimer's progression and associated neurodegeneration" and "has enhanced our understanding of the mechanisms underlying Alzheimer's progression and its manifestation in the brain." While the Petitioner's computer simulations help improve understanding of Alzheimer's disease, she has not demonstrated the extent to which her specific findings are being utilized to improve detection efforts or interventional treatment. Nor has she otherwise demonstrated that her findings constitute a record of success or progress rendering her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
Likewise, Dr. V-M-, a professor in the Department of Mathematical Sciences at Istated: "Through meticulous calibration and validation of mo~de_l_s_u_s-in-g-em-p-ir-ic--a~l Alzheimer's data, [the Petitioner] ensured the simulated patterns closely matched real-world observations. She then conducted simulations analyzing how the proteins propagate over time and space, gaining vital insights into Alzheimer's progression." Dr. V-M-, however, does not offer specific examples ofhow the Petitioner's work has affected clinical practice or treatment development, or otherwise shows success or progress at a level that renders her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
I
In addition, Dr. K-L-, Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at University ofl I I asserted that the Petitioner's research has "served as a critical reference point for discussing the mechanisms underlying neurodegeneration and cognitive decline in the context of aging and diabetes." Similarly, Dr. M-H-, Assistant Professor in the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering atl I indicated that the Petitioner "developed three-dimensional finite element and network diffusion models to simulate the spread and buildup of damaging proteins in the brain, thereby providing an accurate picture of the progression of Alzheimer's disease and neurodegeneration. While Dr. K-L- and Dr. M-H- point to examples of other researchers who have cited to the Petitioner and Dr. J-W-' s article inl Ithe Petitioner has not shown that her level of research success is sufficient to demonstrate she is well positioned. The Petitioner contends that her seven coauthored research articles "have been featured in prestigious outlets, such as.__ ______________
~which has an impact factor of 5.3."5 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 the Petitioner's work, the Petitioner provided her Google Scholar profile from May 2024. The information from Goo le Scholar indicates that her only cited article ( coauthored with Dr. J-W- and three others in in 2021 and entitled I I received 99 citations. None of the Petitioner's
'----------------------~ remaining six articles had received any citations at the time of filing. The Petitioner also provided data from '---------------~----------baseline citation rates and percentiles by year of publication for the .____--r---------, The Petitioner contends that her and Dr. J-W-'s paper in.__ ______.
.______
--r----~h=a=s~"e=n=o~u=h~c1=·t=at=io=n=s""'lto rank among the top 10% of the most-cited papers published in'--------,-----,-------,--,------,-....,,,.......,.....,.-..... _' in 2021. Here, the Petitioner relies on citation information concerning the combined fields of molecular biology and genetics and compares her citation frequency in biomechanical engineering to that of these broader fields. The Petitioner, however, has not submitted sufficient evidence confirming that information extrapolated from the fields of molecular biology and genetics applies equally biomechanical engineering. Thus, the Petitioner's comparison of her citation number in her field with information regarding citation in the broader fields of molecular biology and genetics does not sufficiently demonstrate her record of 5 The record includes information about this jouma)..Jr.QIIJL.lliullJlhll.S.W:.r..'..s.~:.hs:lk..__________, 6 In addition, the petitioner offered~=i....ll.JJ.1.1.1.1.~L--~-------------~-1-.....,_,.L....LI...,,.,."""""......, This article presents recommendations for "how to evaluate individual researchers in the natural and life sciences" for purposes of funding and promotion or hiring decisions. The authors state that "publications which are among the I0% most cited publications in their subject area are as a rule called highly cited or excellent" and that "the top I0% 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." re ardin p. 5 research success or otherwise render her well positioned. Moreover, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by her seven published articles reflects a level of interest in her work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar 's second prong.No interest from users, customers or investors
Regardless, citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis. In that regard, the record contains partial copies of several articles that cited to the Petitioner and Dr. J-W-'s paper inl I I I These articles include the text of the citation, which the Petitioner asserts highlight the impact of her paper. While we agree with the Petitioner that these citations indicate some degree of interest in her research from her 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 her well positioned. Many of the papers in the record cite to her work as an example of research done in the field or in the introduction section as part of an overview of current research, but none highlight or comment upon her research in a way that demonstrates she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. As it relates to the Petitioner's education, while her master's degree renders her eligible for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, she has not shown that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. 7 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 her proposed endeavor and education is merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding.
Regarding the Petitioner' s(lal for future activities, she stated that she intended "to pursue a position as a research scientist at as a post-doc." With respect to the Petition~aining a future postdoctoral research position, she did not provide documentation from L_J showing their communications relating to a postdoctoral appointment or identifying the specific research projects she intends to pursue on the institute' s behalf. Without sufficient evidence demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake her proposed research in the United States after graduation from her current Ph.D. program, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her plan for future activities renders her well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Regarding her peer review activity, the Petitioner presented documentation indicating that she reviewed one article each for I ~ For instance, she provided a March 2023 email fromD an open access scientific journal, stating: "Thank you for your review .... It has been sent to the Academic Editor, and you will receive a copy of their editorial decision in due course.... You have been awarded IOI tTokens for your review of this article. Each token is 7 "USCTS considers an advanced degree, particularly a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), in a STEM field tied to the proposed endeavor and related to work fmthering a critical and emerging technology or other STEM area important to U.S. competitive 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, F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. A degree in and ofitselt: however, is not the only factor we consider in determining ifa person is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Id"'".---.
worth 10 USD and can be exchanged for discounts on your next Article Processing Charge." The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that her two instances participation in the widespread peer review process and reviews ofthis kind represent a record ofsuccess in her field or that they are otherwise an indication that she is well positioned to advance her research endeavor.
The Petitioner also asserts that she has received funding for her research from two government sources. In support of her claim, she submits a research paper that she coauthored with Dr. J-W- and others in which the "Acknowledgements" section noted that their work was supported by the National Science Foundation and National Institute on Aging. 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 Dr. J-W-) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects.
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during her graduate studies, 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, 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 her graduate work constitutes a record of success or progress in biomechanical engineering research rendering her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. As the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she is well positioned to advance her proposed research endeavor, she has not established that she 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, she 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 her eligibility under the third prong outlined inDhanasar. 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 ofL-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).
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. 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.