The Petitioner, a graduate research and teaching assistant, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a person of exceptional ability, as well as a discretionary 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 although the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification based on exceptional ability, he did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus labor certification, would be in the national interest. This matter is before us on appeal, which we review de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). The Petitioner has the burden of establishing his eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
To be eligible for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as an advanced degree professional or an individual ofexceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(A), (B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(l ). If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate that they warrant a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884,889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions, which states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner establishes that: (1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) they are well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and (3) on balance, waiving the job offer and thus labor certification requirements would benefit the United States. Id. 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in holding that USCIS ' decision on a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature).
Analysis
SCOPS found that the Petitioner met at least three of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and ultimately concluded he qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "exceptional ability"), a determination supported by the record. The issue on appeal is whether he warrants a discretionary national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework and its requisite three prongs, any one ofwhich is dispositive. SCOPS found that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the evidence did not show that it has national importance and he thus did not meet Dhanasar's first prong, and further concluded that he also did not satisfy Dhanasar's second and third prongs. On appeal, he alleges that SCOPS failed to properly apply the Dhanasar framework and consider all relevant evidence; reasserts his eligibility for a national interest waiver; and avers that the evidence satisfies all three Dhanasar prongs, including that his proposed endeavor has national importance and he is well-positioned to advance it.
The Petitioner obtained a Bachelor of "Computer Science & Engineering" in 2021 from Bangladesh. In 2023, he started attending thd Ito pursue a Ph.D. in computer science.
However, he does not claim, and the record does not include any evidence, he currently holds any graduate degree. The Petitioner's resume states that he has served as a graduate research assistant at the Oand he is now a teaching assistant. The resume also lists, among other things, six published undergraduate and graduate articles he c~ored with others, awards and recognitions in this country and Bangladesh, and his experience as al_Jgraduate assistant and a lecturer in Bangladesh. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as he notes in his initial statement, "is to develop state-of-the-art AI methodologies, tools, and algorithms in order to analyze multimodal healthcare data, medical images, and ECG [electrocardiogram] signal data" to improve diagnostic accuracy and patient care. He further asserts in his updated statement that his research aims "to enhance patient outcomes and increase precision diagnostics in cardiovascular health"; "directly addresses" a critical need "through the creation of unique AI models for ECG signals"; and develop deep machine learning models for advanced imaging techniques (including in detecting breast cancer and brain tumor) that will improve "diagnostic accuracy and decision-making from multimodal healthcare data using cutting-edge machine learning models." While not a part of his proposed endeavor ( of being a graduate researcher and prospective developer of AI diagnostics models), he also expresses a desire to be an assistant professor at the0upon completion of his Ph.D. degree.
We acknowledge that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. The Petitioner's assertion that it could help further disseminate knowledge and improve patient care and relevant supporting documents in the record indicate that the proposed endeavor may have national importance. However, even if his proposed endeavor may have national importance, we conclude that the evidence does not establish that he is well-positioned to advance it, and the record thus does not satisfy Dhanasar's second prong. We will therefore dismiss the appeal on this ground.
Dhanasar's second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, we consider the totality of the circumstances based on various non-exhaustive factors including, but not limited to, education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future p. 3 activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of future customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals.Past record does not show influence or success Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The record includes the Petitioner's resume, undergraduate degree and academic records from Bangladesh; his conference papers and "preprint" articles, related citation records and metrics, and excerpts of articles citing his work; support letters discussing his research and expressing interest in offering him a postdoctoral position upon completion ofhis Ph.D. degree; two expert letters; and news articles and industry reports. He highlights his education, publication and citation records, as well as the support letters in reasserting that he is well-position to advance his proposed endeavor. Turning to Dhanasar's second-prong factors, the Petitioner received his undergraduate computer science and~ineering degree in 2021 from Bangladesh and began pursuing a computer science Ph.D. at theLJin 2023. As noted, however, he does not claim, and the record contains no evidence, he currently holds any graduate degree. 2 Cf Dhanasar at 891-92 (noting that Dr. Dhanasar, who was found to be well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor to engage in research and development in air and space propulsion systems and teach aerospace engineering, held two graduate degrees and a Ph.D. in related fields). Further, although a D associate professor indicated in a letter his "interest in hiring" the Petitioner as a postdoctoral fellow "upon successful completion of [his] Ph.D. degree," he is currently not a postdoctoral fellow and it is unclear ifor when he will be one, unlike Dr. Dhanasar who had relevant postdoctoral research experience at the time of filing.
As evidence of record of success in his field and progress towards achieving his goals, the Petitioner also highlights, and we acknowledge, his publications, documented by his four undergraduate papers he and his □tributors wrote in Bangladesh between 2020 and 2022 and seven coauthored papers written as raduate student, including a 2024 paper he submits on appeal. These papers comprise two written in 2020, two in 2022, three in 2023, and four in 2024, and their topics include medical data image handling approaches utilizing AI to improve diagnostic accuracy in ECG heartbeat classification and breast cancer and brain tumor detection.
The Petitioner also relies on citation records ofhis conference and preprint articles based on his Google Scholar profile and excerpts ofother articles that reference his work. According to the Google Scholar information submitted with the Form I-140 netition in F ebruarv 2024. the four most cited articles titled Ir20201 " 'ICitation record not persuasive
,._______.l-'-=r2;..;;..;:02:;..;;,0J," l~------r--------------------1 r20221," and 'I
~----~received no citation at the time of filing. The two 2022 articles ( a conference paper and a preprint article), as noted, were written in Bangladesh before he started graduate school in 2023, and the two 2020 conference articles were undergraduate papers. 4 The updated Google Scholar profile he,..-11.1.LU..L.LLU......,_.L.1..1.Ju....uo'---1.LL..U.~UJ.J..::.....__,.J.,l a request for evidence (RFE) indicates, as of October 2024, the 2020 undergraduate paper received 10 more citations· the 2020 ndergraduate article had no additional citation; the 2022 ~-----~ rticle received one more citation; and the 2022I I paper was cited one additional ti - e no longer lists the 2024 I I' on tabular data and articles. However it now lists four additional 2024 articles two of which ( on '~-----------~ and received no citation. The other 1-=-1u....u=c....a..L.LJ.L..u;:;.::,, ,.____________________--,.____________.'and....,__~____.
The Petitioner avers that the fact he has provided peer review services for other publications also show he is making trogress toward advancing his proposed endeavor. But the two review "certificates" froml ubmitted below in support of this assertion only generally indicate he has conducted "8 reviews" from 2022 to 2023 in "Computers in Biology and Medicine" and "l review" in 2023 in "Data Science and Management." These certificates do not contain any other information on the claimed peer review experience such as the extent of his review services and what "reviews" he actually conducted and how.
As further evidence of record of success in his field, the Petitioner also points to two recommendation letters from a professor and a Microsoft applied scientist. The professor's letter states that the Petitioner is a "leading" AI scholar and his research has influenced AI research in image analysis, and the professor himself and others have cited his 2020 undergraduate conference paper on ECG heartbeat classification mentioned above. The applied scientist in her letter states that the Petitioner is a "key figure in advancing medical imaging" and has "led" the AI field "in novel and exciting directions." She also asserts the Petitioner's work on segmentation and deep learning has been cited by herself and others. But neither letter writer indicates any personal knowledge ofthe Petitioner's skills or his work beyond the stated citation history, and their vague assertion that he is a "key figure" is not born out by the evidence.Support letters generic or unsupported The record (including his own papers and related citation records) instead indicates he is one of many engaged in similar efforts, rather than a leading figure in the field. While the two letters express that his research is generally helping to advance the field, they do not detail a record of success or progress in his efforts that is groundbreaking or exceptional, as he claims. Although the record reflects that the Petitioner has conducted some productive undergraduate and graduate research that has been useful to a degree, he has not sufficiently demonstrated progress or success in his field, or interest in his work from relevant parties, to establish that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor of developing state-of-the-art AI methodologies, tools, and algorithms for healthcare data and medical image analysis.No interest from users, customers or investors
The final factor relates to evidence of interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. The Petitioner claims that his research has "drawn investments from at least two major investors, the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and the NSF [National Science Foundation)." As evidence ofthis assertion, he refers to the 2024 ! ~, preprint article on tabular data written with his associate professor. However, this article in its "Acknowledgements" section merely states "[ t ]his research is supported in part by the NSF [ ... ] and the NIH [ ... ] Grants" without any other detail. Further, the associate tJrofessor in his su ort letter admits that the NSF fundin is for an umbrella university project titled
I I for whic~h_t_h_e____ e_c-ei_v_e_d_$_5_9_0-,0-0-0-an_d_h_e_w_a_s_'_'t_h_e_c_o_-p_r-in_c_i_p-al_1_· n-v-e-st-ig_a_t_o_r-li-nk-ed~ to" the funding. The associate professor does not mention the other funding by the NIH, and he does not specify the initiators of the grant proposals, recipients of awards, or how the funds were allocated. The record does not otherwise contain any evidence that the Petitioner or his own research project specifically received any funding, or that he himself initiated or was the primary award contact on any funding proposals. Cf Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 892-93 & n. 11 (noting the significance of Dr. Dhanasar's own research projects that received consistent, repeated government fundings, for which he was the initiator and primary award contact on several funding proposals and the only listed researcher on many of the grants).
The same associate professor expressed in his second letter an "interest in hiring" the Petitioner as a postdoctoral fellow "upon successful completion of [his] Ph.D. degree." But, as stated, he is not a postdoctoral researcher and it is unclear when he is expected to be one. Further, as noted, the Petitioner does not presently have any graduate degree, and the record contains no evidence of a job offer indicating an employer's interest in hiring him as a researcher or an assistant professor. The record also lacks evidence that he has in fact developed an AI model that was recognized or adopted by the AI or healthcare industry. The record thus lacks evidence of interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals, and these factors do not weigh in the Petitioner's favor. While we acknowledge his desire to contribute to the AI diagnostics field and his research aspirations as a graduate student, not everyone with research and publication experience will be deemed to be well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Rather, we must examine the enumerated Dhanasar factors as referenced above. In considering the record in totality, the fact that the Petitioner has no graduate degree does not weigh in his favor. Moreover, the evidence does not show strong publication or citation records; the ability to pursue his proposed endeavor through a research job or postdoctoral position; a statement of interest; or potential funding that may further indicate a record of progress or success in his field. The evidence of record thus does not demonstrate the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 5
As the identified ground for denial, the Petitioner's inability to satisfy Dhanasar's second prong is dispositive of this appeal, we do not address here the SCOPS findings as to the third Dhanasar prong. 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). ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.