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.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 research assistant and pursuing his Ph.D. in the Department of Computer and Information Sciences at ~------~ 3 He stated that his
"proposed endeavor is to apply theoretical/experimental analysis to characterize system performance in order to develop novel solutions that enhance performance and reduce costs for future network systems, such as quantum networks and distributed training systems for artificial intelligence (AI)." The Petitioner farther indicated: "Atl l my work includes ... investigating topics primrily folused on quantum networks, networks for AI, and AI for networks. I am also collaborating with on a project that employs machine learning methods to enhance 4G and 5G network performance."
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. SCOPS determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. We agree.
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We withdraw SCOPS' determination 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 technological benefits of AI and its role in quantum computing. He also provided letters of support discussing how his undertaking helps contribute to advancements in machine learning and quantum networking. Additionally, the Petitioner submitted documentation indicating that the benefit of his proposed research offers broader implications in the field of AI, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through scientific journals and conferences. As the Petitioner has demonstrated 2 The Petitioner received a Master of Science degree in Computer Science (2023) from._________. in 2024. 3 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from a specific employer. However, we will consider information about his research position to illustrate the capacity in which he intends to work in order to determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar framework. p. 3 both the substantial merit and national importance of his 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 peer review service. 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 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 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 networking and AI. For example, with respect to the Petitioner's work forl IDr. WZ-, a principal inventive scientist atl I asserted that the Petitioner's "innovations in model architecture, such as custom tokenizers and positional encoding methods, have laid the groundwork for more intelligent and efficient network management." While Dr. W-Z- claimed that their "evaluations suggest [the Petitioner's] research could yield significant annual cost savings by streamlining service quality assessments," he did not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings have been utilized in the industry. 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. Y-W-, a professor at. _________. commented on the Petitioner's research
Petitioner's research paper on this topic in his 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 his research has been published in "three peer-reviewed journal articles and five peer-reviewed conference articles featured in top outlets in his field, including IEEE Network (impact factor 6.8, ranked seventh in Computer Networks & Wireless Communication by Google Scholar) and IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing (impact factor 5.3)." 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 his Google Scholar profile from January 2025. This information from Google Scholar indicates that his four highest cited articles, entitled (2022), I I
1 1 c2022),
I t
(2023), and I I
(2024) each received 12, 9, 6, and 4 citations, respectively. 4 The Petitioner does not specify how many citations for each of these individual articles were self-citations by him or his coauthors. In response to SCOPS' request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a May 2025 Google Scholar profile listing additional citations his published articles received that post-date the January 30, 2025 filing of the Form I-140 petition. 5 These later citations provided in response to the RFE do not establish his eligibility at the time of filing. 6 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12).Not eligible at the time of filing
The Petitioner also provided 2024 data from Clarivate Analytics (In Cites Essential Science Indicators) regarding baseline citation rates and percentiles by year of publication for the "Computer Science" research field. The Petitioner contends, for example, that his papers, entitled I I I I and I I
I Iranked among "the top
10% most cited articles" published in 2023 and 2024 based on the citations they have received (six and four citations, respectively). Here, the Petitioner relies on citation information concerning the larger field of computer science and compares his citation frequency in AI to that of the larger field. While we acknowledge that AI is part of the larger field of computer science, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence confirming that information extrapolated from the larger field applies equally to each subfield within computer science, including AI. Thus, the Petitioner's comparison of his citation number in his field with information regarding citation in the larger field of computer science does not sufficiently establish the level of his success or impact in the field of AI. 4 None of the Petitioner's remaining articles had received more than two citations as of January 2025. 5 For example, the citation count for.__ _____________________________.
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted an article in Scientometrics written by Lutz Bornmann and Werner Marx, entitled "How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations." 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 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."
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's papers (including his paper, entitled I I for example). These artic ...... l-es-1-.n-c-lu_d_e_t-he-te_x_t_o......,f 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 ofinterest or a record ofresearch 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 "Related Work" section as part ofan overview ofcurrent 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 funding 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 themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 7 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 USC1S Policy Manual, F.5(D)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. A degree in and ofitself, however, is not a sufficient basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Id.
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 published several papers as the result of research projects funded through grants from the National Science Foundation." 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 one of his professors) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects.
Regarding his peer review activity, the Petitioner presented documentation indicating that he reviewed manuscripts for the International Performance Computing and Communications Conference, Transactions on Cloud Computing, Transactions on Mobile Computing, Intelligent and Converged Networks, Journal of Computer Science and Technology, IEEE Internet of Things Journal, and the IEEE International Conference on Mobile Ad-Hoc and Smart Systems. He has not demonstrated, however, that his participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in his field or that it is otherwise an indication that he is well positioned to advance his research endeavor. 8 With respect to his plan for future activities, the Petitioner initially stated that upon completion of his Ph.D. degree, he intended "to pursue a position as an assistant professor at.__ __________, My planned research topics include design and optimization for network systems, aiming to enhance their efficiency and reliability, such as quantum communication systems, distributed AI training systems, and 5G/6G networks." In response to the RFE, the Petitioner reiterated that he planned "to continue my research by working as an assistant professor at the.__ ________~ or a similar employer. This type of work is tenure-track and research oriented." The Petitioner, however, did not provide documentation from any such employer either showing their communications or identifying the specific research projects he intends to pursue on the organization's behalf Without sufficient evidence demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake his proposed research in the United States after graduation, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his plan for future activities renders him well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 9 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 8 To establish that it would be in the national interest to waive the job offer requirement, a petitioner must go beyond showing their expertise in a particular field. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute. individuals of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given petitioner seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, that individual cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in their field of expertise. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 886 n.3.
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 AI 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 inDhanasar. 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.S(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.