The Petitioner, a doctoral student and researcher in the artificial intelligence (Al) field, 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 did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus ofa labor certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider.
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motions. A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Because the scope of a motion is limited to the prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(l)(i), (ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome).
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889, provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Innnigration 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 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature).
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
In our prior decision, we determined that the Petitioner established his eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong. 2 But we concluded, contrary to SCOPS' decision, that the record did not establish that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Finally, under the third prong of the Dhanasar framework, we determined he had not shown that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. Therefore, we concluded he did not demonstrate that he merited a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement as a matter of discretion.
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. He asserts that our evaluation of whether he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor did not follow Dhanasar's guidelines and instead imposed novel requirements. Further, relying on Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010), the Petitioner asserts that our decision did not properly weigh all the evidence he submitted, therefore deviating from the preponderance of the evidence standard. The Petitioner also submits new evidence in support of his motion to reopen. He asserts that when the record is properly evaluated in its entirety "it is clear that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that he has satisfied Dhanasar's third prong requirement."
Upon review of the Petitioner's arguments and new evidence on motion, we conclude that he has not established his eligibility under Dhanasar's second and third prongs. We will address his eligibility under each of these prongs below.
Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
The second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the alien. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. To determine whether a petitioner is 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 Petitioner holds the equivalent of a United States master's degree in computer engineering and is pursuing his doctoral degree in computer science and engineering at the I He stated that after he receives his degree, he intends to pursue a position as a professor with California Institute of Technology (Caltech). On motion, the Petitioner contends we did not properly consider evidence showing his record of success in related or similar efforts and the interest in his work from other relevant parties in his field.No interest from users, customers or investors He particularly focuses on his papers published in scientific journals 2 The Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor is to "employ advanced AT and machine learning (ML) techniques to optimize data analysis methodologies and enhance software engineering practices in order to advance healthcare, smart cities, and education." He indicated his intent to use AI-driven algorithms and data analytics, with the goal of developing technology solutions that "optimize decision-making, streamline resource allocation, and enhance educational outcomes." l p. 3 or conference proceedings, the citations those papers have received from other researchers, his peer review experience, evidence that he has worked on research projects fonded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and two recommendation letters. and
~---------------------------~'2024), garnered sufficient citations to rank among the top 10% of papers published in the field of computer science. We noted in our prior decision that these three papers, at the time of filing in September 2024, had 9, 6 and 2 citations, respectively. In addressing the significance of those citations, we determined "the record does not contain sufficient probative and corroborating evidence" to support the Petitioner's claim that the papers should be considered highly cited.
The Petitioner asserts that we failed to discuss evidence from Clarivate Analytics (InCites Essential Science Indicators) regarding baseline citation rates and percentiles for the computer science field. This data, published in 2024, indicates that computer science papers published in 2023 with at least five citations ranked in the top 10% among papers published the same year. For papers published in 2024, papers with at least one citation ranked in the top 10%. However, the "highly skewed"3 nature of such metrics is evident in these figures. For example, for papers published in 2023, publications in the top 1 % had at least 19 citations and those in the top .01 % had 139 citations, while 50% of papers had at least 1 citation. This data shows that citation count alone does not meaningfully separate the relative success or impact of the Petitioner's papers (with 9 and 6 citations, respectively) from that of the average paper contemporaneously published in his field.Citation record not persuasive Therefore, this data does not demonstrate a particularly strong citation history or otherwise document a sufficient record of success to support the Petitioner's assertion that he is well-positioned to advance his endeavor.
On motion, the Petitioner submits his July 2025 Google Scholar citation history and 2025 Clarivate Analytics data in support of his claim that he now has five papers (with 18, 12, 12, 6 and 5 citations, respectively) that rank in the top 10% in computer science publications published in 2023 and 2024. Even if we found the Clarivate Analytics metrics to be persuasive, these later citations documented on motion cannot establish the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing.Not eligible at the time of filing See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). The Petitioner also submits OpenAlex author metrics, which he claims compare his citation impact and research productivity to that of other computer science researchers. According to this model, the Petitioner has a "Citation Percentile" of 90.13% and a "Publication Percentile" of 91.5 3 %. The documentation lists the "Years Covered" as "2015-2025" and indicates that the inputs to the model were based on the Petitioner's Google Scholar publication and citation history as of July 2025. Therefore, this evidence, likewise, cannot establish the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing. Id. Regardless, we note that the submitted documentation provides little information regarding how the percentiles were calculated or other evidence supporting the reliability of the OpenAlex metrics. An accompanying excerpt from the OpenAlex website states that it "aggregates and standardizes data from a whole bunch of other great projects." However, the website does not farther explain its 3 An accompanying supporting document from Clarivate Analytics stated: "Citation frequency is highly skewed with many infrequently cited papers and relative few highly cited papers. Consequently, citation rates could not be interpreted as representing the central tendency of the distribution." p. 4 methods, and it offers no assurances regarding the dependability of its sources or inputs to its model, the reliability of the model's output, or the model's intended use.
The new evidence on motion also includes 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."
We consider evidence of a strong citation history as a positive factor in evaluating a petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar's second prong. Here, for the reasons discussed, the record does not substantiate the Petitioner's assertion that his overall citation rate, 28 at the time of filing, or the number of citations garnered by his individual publications, reflects a record of success or a level of interest in his work sufficient to be a significant positive factor.
We have also evaluated the qualitative nature of the citations to determine whether the record demonstrates that there has been positive discourse around or adoption of the Petitioner's work. Such evidence may also be a positive factor under the second prong, particularly if it shows the work has influenced the field of endeavor. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. The record includes partial copies of papers written by other researchers who cite the Petitioner's published work. The Petitioner describes these as "notable citations" and asserts that they demonstrate his work has been "widely celebrated and implemented." However, the nature of the citations does not sufficiently demonstrate that there has been significant positive discourse surrounding his research work or show that his research is considered influential in the field.
For exam le et al in their article ' ________________________ __., " cite the Petitioner's 2018 article among eight others that describe "various methods for future energy prediction." The Petitioner's study is identified as of one of three articles describing "short-term load forecasting methods." The authors state nothing further about his research other than noting it considers the methods described in the cited articles to be "incom lete." et al, in their article titled ' ___________~ " cite one of the Petitioner's articles, along with another paper, in support of their statement that different modeling methods "come with their own inherent limitations." While these and other excerpted articles were presented as "notable citations" to the Petitioner's work, the articles generally do not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from the other cited papers or indicate that the authors significantly relied on it or adopted it. Considered individually and collectively, p. 5 the submitted citations do not show that there has been a notable level of positive discourse about or adoption of the Petitioner's work in his field.
On motion, the Petitioner also asserts that our prior decision disregarded two recommendation letters from experts in his field. 4 A letter from Dr. A-M-, an assistant professor at._____________., highlights the Petitioner's "work with mobile device[s]" and discusses the Petitioner's development of a "Lyapunov optimization-guided model" that "bolstered the performance of mobile devices overall" and makes mobile phones "more efficient and viable for long-term use." He further stated the Petitioner's research has implications for "smart city development and smart manufacturing operations." The author appears to be referencing the Petitioner's 2018 article titled I I .________________________.which had garnered 10 citations in the six years since its publication and which the Petitioner himself did not claim was a highly cited publication. Dr. M's letter does not contain sufficient specifics, nor does the record contain supporting evidence, to corroborate that the Petitioner's model was adopted by the mobile device industry or otherwise influenced the field. Therefore, the record does not corroborate his claim that the Petitioner enjoys "an irreplaceable presence in the research sphere" based on the field's interest in this particular work. A letter from Dr. F-H-, an associate dean at the. ___________
~and a co-author of several of the Petitioner's publications, primarily speaks to the national importance of the Petitioner's field of research and briefly summarizes some of their joint research projects. However, the letter does not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his endeavor and is not sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence of his claimed research achievements and influence. For example, Dr. H- described the Petitioner's use ofthe Salp Swarm Algorithm to improve cloud computing tasks scheduling and stated that this work results in "better resource utilization and higher performance" and benefits "industry leaders such as Amazon and Google." He further stated that the Petitioner's' development of a student-centered personalized learning framework to advance undergraduate robotics education has "demonstrably improved robotics education." While the record shows that the Petitioner co-authored two publications based on these research projects that had garnered 15 cumulative citations at the time of filing, it does not provide support for Dr. H's claim that the Petitioner's work has resulted in interest from or benefits to Amazon and Google or that his learning framework has been adopted by institutions offering undergraduate courses in robotics. On motion, the Petitioner further contends that we erroneously disregarded evidence showing that he has worked on research projects that were funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) on the grounds that he did not show he was the primary awardee or recipient of the grant funding. He maintains that participation in funded research is "both an indication of success and reflective of a plan for future activities" and asserts we applied a novel evidentiary requirement by requiring evidence he was the primary grant recipient.
We agree that evidence of funding is not a specific requirement in establishing that a petitioner is well positioned to advance his endeavor, although evidence that a petitioner has received awards or grants from federal, state or local government entities can be a positive factor in evaluating whether a person 4 Letters may be persuasive when they are from experts in the person's field who have first-hand knowledge ofthe person's achievements, describe those achievements, provide specific examples ofhow the person is well positioned to advance the person's endeavor. and are supported by other independent evidence. See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra. at F.5(D)(3). p. 6 is well-positioned to advance a proposed endeavor. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(3). Further, as was the case in Dhanasar, evidence that a petitioner is named as the primary or sole researcher in grant documentation can be a positive factor in showing interest in their work. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Here, the evidence shows NSF's interest in research projects in which the Petitioner was a participant but does not contain sufficient information pertaining to these grants or his individual contributions. The Petitioner suggests that any graduate student who participates in research supported by grant funding should meet their burden to demonstrate a record of success. However, USCIS decides each petition on a case-by-case basis and the more integral a person is to an endeavor, the stronger the case the person presents that they are well positioned to advance it. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(3). Given the Petitioner's claim that the NSF funding also serves as evidence of his "plan for future activities," it is reasonable to inquire into whether he was a named recipient of the grant(s).
The evidence discussed above shows that while pursuing his doctoral degree, the Petitioner has published and presented research related to his proposed endeavor, and that those publications have been cited by other researchers in their own work. We recognize that research must add information to the pool ofknowledge in a particular field to be accepted for publication, presentation, and academic credit, but not every individual who has performed and published original research will be found to be well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. When making our determination under the second prong, we consider all relevant factors, including a petitioner's plan for future activities related to their proposed endeavor, progress in achieving their proposed endeavor, and the interest of other relevant parties in their work. Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his published work has, for example, influenced his field, generated substantial positive discourse, or otherwise shown that it constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing his research.
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that our prior decision did not address evidence showing that he has served as a peer reviewer for academic publications in his field. The record shows he has served as a peer reviewer for several journals in his field and had reviewed at least ten manuscripts at the time of filing. The Petitioner maintains that "a record of peer review stands as evidence of extraordinary ability, let alone that one is merely well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor," referring to the evidentiary requirements for aliens of extraordinary ability at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The Petitioner cannot satisfy Dhanasar's second prong by claiming he provided evidence that would satisfy requirements applicable to a different immigrant classification. Further, his suggestion that peer review service alone is "evidence of extraordinary ability" is an oversimplification of the requirements for the extraordinary ability immigrant classification, further discussion of which is outside the scope of this adjudication. We acknowledge that a peer reviewer must possess knowledge and skills in the field in which they conduct their reviews. But the Petitioner has not shown how the quantity or quality ofhis participation in the widespread peer review process to date represents a record of success in similar endeavors, evidence of his plans for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, or interest in or support for his work from relevant entities or persons. In the same vein, the Petitioner also points to the evidence of his role as a technical session chair for a conference in his field I Ias support for his claim under Dhanasar's second prong. This evidence was accompanied by "Session Chair Guidelines" published by a different conference l 0; he did not provide session chair guidelines published by the I !conference. Further, the record does not include information regarding the conference's selection process for session chairs. I
Thus, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that this role demonstrates interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or is indicative of a record of success in advancing his endeavor.
Regarding the Petitioner's model or plan for future activities, we observed in our prior decision that the Petitioner had submitted a plan for his ongoing research, including plans to continue publishing his research in journals and at conferences. The Petitioner indicated on his petition, in the accompanying labor certification (Form ETA 9089), and in his personal statement that he would advance his proposed endeavor while completing his Ph.D. at the~---------~ and then seek a position as a professor at Caltech. We observed that the Petitioner did not provide a job offer from Caltech or any other employer, or otherwise provide evidence of interest from potential employers, customers, users, investors or other relevant entities or individuals interested in his proposed endeavor.
On motion, the Petitioner emphasizes that an alien who is eligible for a national interest waiver explicitly does not require an offer of employment and that our emphasis on his lack of a job offer should not have outweighed the "mountain of evidence" he provided to establish eligibility under Dhanasar's second prong.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification The Petitioner also explains that he proposed a long-term employment plan to reflect the type of position he would reasonably hold in the future, at the time he is granted lawful permanent residence in the United States. Finally, he points to his previous overseas employment as a software engineer and university instructor, noting that he had "little difficulty obtaining employment in the past" and that he is therefore well-positioned to find a position that will allow him to advance his proposed endeavor.
We acknowledge the Petitioner's clarification that he does not plan to pursue employment as a university professor immediately after completing his Ph.D., despite his previous statement to the contrary. 5 However, in the case of a petitioner who does not intend to be self-employed, USCIS considers a job offer or communications with prospective employers, while not required, relevant to demonstrate the circumstances or capacity in which the person intends to carry out the endeavor and the feasibility of that plan. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(3). Further, while a job offer is not required, we can reasonably look for a plan describing how the person intends to continue their proposed work in the United States, documentation reflecting feasible plans for financial support, and other evidence relevant to the inquiry of how the person will advance the proposed endeavor and to corroborate projections related to the proposed endeavor. Id.
Here, the Petitioner offers no explanation or evidence of how he will advance his endeavor beyond stating that he will complete his Ph.D. at some unspecified date and eventually secure employment as a professor at a leading U.S. university. The Petitioner's assurance that he has been able to obtain employment in the past does not serve as evidence of a detailed proposal or plan for future activities related to the proposed endeavor and is insufficient to demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance it. Without sufficient evidence of fonding, interest from potential employers, or evidence of other steps he has taken to support his planned research after receiving his Ph.D., the Petitioner has not established that his plan renders him well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 5 In a personal statement dated August 1, 2024, the Petitioner stated: "Upon completion of my degree, I intend to pursue a position as a professor at the California Institute of Technology."
The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and record of success in related efforts, as demonstrated by his publication history, citation record, and recommendations from other researchers, are positive factors. However, they are not sufficient to overcome the lack of evidence to demonstrate a model or plan for future activities, the lack of specifics regarding the capacity in which he would be able to pursue his proposed endeavor, and the lack of evidence demonstrating interest from potential users, employers, or other relevant entities. After considering the relevant factors under the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework and the Petitioner's evidence and arguments on motion, we conclude he has not established that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
Waiver Beneficial to the United States
The third prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890-91. In performing this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the individual's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Id.
We weighed these factors in our prior decision, and explained our conclusions that the Petitioner did not establish: that it would be impractical for him to secure a job offer or obtain a labor certification; that the need for his contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant foregoing the labor certification process; or that his skills, training, and experience in the AI field is of such value that, on balance, they outweigh the national interest in protecting the U.S. workforce through the labor certification process.No urgency shown On motion, the Petitioner does not directly address our findings with respect to the third prong, but rather relies on 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(4), which provides specific guidance applicable to petitions filed by persons with advanced degrees in STEM fields. The Petitioner emphasizes that, in evaluating the third prong, we should have found the following combination of facts to be a strong positive factor:
- The person possesses an advanced STEM degree, especially a Ph.D.;
- The person will be engaged in work furthering a critical and emerging technology or other STEM area important to U.S. competitiveness; and
- The person is well positioned to advance the proposed STEM endeavor of national importance.
The policy guidance notes that the benefit of a person's entry to the United States is "especially weighty" where the endeavor has the potential to support U.S. national security or enhance U.S. economic competitiveness, or when the petition is supported by letters form interested U.S. government agencies. Id.
Here, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has a Ph.D. in a STEM field. Further, for the reasons discussed above, the record does not demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed STEM endeavor. Finally, the record does not contain specific evidence showing that the p. 9 Petitioner's proposed endeavor has the potential to support U.S. national security or enhance economic competitiveness, nor is it supported by letters from interested U.S. government agencies. Therefore, he has not demonstrated that our determination on the third prong was based on an incorrect application of the referenced USCIS policy guidance. It is the Petitioner's burden to establish that factors in favor of granting the waiver outweigh those that support the requirement of a job offer and thus a labor certification. Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden.
Conclusion
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, he has not established that it would be in the national interest to grant a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4).
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.
NOTICE: 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 of the 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.