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. § 1153(b )(2).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification, but that she had not established that a waiver ofthe required job offer, and thus ofthe labor certification, would be in the national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and asserts that she is eligible for the benefit sought. The Petitioner bears the burden ofproofto demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 53 7, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&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 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature).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.
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 ofa job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar. 2
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. 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 that the Petitioner had not established that her proposed endeavor had both substantial merit and national importance.
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. The record indicates that the Petitioner is currently working as a post-doctoral fellow at ~-------------~' a teaching affiliate of I lafter receiving her Ph.D. in Medical Sciences in 2020. 3 She asserts that she intends to continue her work as a postdoctoral researcher, focusing on employing "molecular biological techniques to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the development and progression of metabolic diseases, such as obesity, diabetes, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, in order to create novel therapeutic strategies for these diseases." Specifically, the Petitioner indicates that she will investigate how "exercise-induced redox signaling regulates skeletal muscle protein homeostasis and glucose metabolism and how these adaptations farther impact the development of obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic diseases." The record includes detail regarding the two projects that the Petitioner will focus her research on, including the abstracts, approaches, and aims for each of the stated projects.4 The research, as detailed by the Petitioner, "is of great importance because it improves global public health by accelerating the development of novel treatments for metabolic diseases, including diabetes and NAFLD [Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease]," noting that "[a]pproximately 422 million people around the work have diabetes, and an estimated 1.5 million people die from diabetes every year." Moreover, as of 2019 "an estimated 1.66 billion people worldwide suffer from NAFLD," a "major-international health problem and a "top cause of liver-related deaths."
I
Moreover, the Petitioner's endeavor has the potential to advance a critical and emerging technology field, biotechnologies. USCIS recognizes the importance of progress in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, especially in focused critical and emerging technologies important to U.S. competitiveness or national security. See generally 6 USC] S Policy Manual, F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. Additionally, 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 medical journals. Accordingly, we withdraw SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong.
As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed research, she has established that she 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. Dhanasar, 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. 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 research under Dhanasar's second prong.
The Petitioner has demonstrated that she holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. doctorate degree in medical sciences, which relates to her proposed endeavor. Although the Petitioner's advanced degree in a STEM field is an especially positive factor, it is not a sufficient basis to determine that she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. Rather, we look to a variety of factors and education is merely one among many that may contribute to such a determination.
The Petitioner provided several recommendation letters. In Dhanasar, we considered favorably that the petitioner provided letters authored by established experts in the field who described the petitioner's research in detail and attested to the petitioner's expertise in the field. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 892. A professor at the I lat._____________.at !described projects the Petitioner had undertaken and stated that she has established herself "as one of the field's [cell biology] top researchers through the influence of her work on investigating glucose and lipid metabolism in metabolic diseases, such as obesity and diabetes, liver disease and cardiovascular disease." While the professor references instances when the Petitioner's articles have been cited, the professor does not provide sufficient detail to establish that the Petitioner's work on its own has affected the field or otherwise represents a record of success or progress rendering her well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.Citation record not persuasive As another example, while the chi et: section ofdiabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at I Istated that the Petitioner's findings "have driven key advances in understanding the role of hepatic glucose signaling in liver disease, focusing on the transcription factor carbohydrate-responsible element-binding protein (ChREBP)," p. 4 the letter does not further elaborate and sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field or otherwise constitutes a record of success.
The letters in the record do not suffice to establish how the Petitioner's research has influenced the field of endeavor, to demonstrate the significance of her work and show that her work constitutes a record of success. Nor has the Petitioner shown that a notable number ofthe citing authors placed unusual reliance on her work, resulting in a significant impact within the field. Citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for citations, which involve a qualitative analysis. In other words, a high citation number might show that others in the field have noticed the Petitioner's work, but it does not confirm that her work has impacted or advanced the field of endeavor in such a way that renders her well position. Researchers throughout a given field may cite other published works without the cited work being notably influential or serving as a foundational basis for their own work. Even though others within the Petitioner's field may have relied on her research findings within their own work, this is not sufficient to demonstrate that she has made contributions of major significance within the field. The Petitioner has not established that the number of citations received by her published articles reflect a level ofinterest in her work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second prong.No interest from users, customers or investors Further, 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, expertise, and experience 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.
We will also consider a petitioner's model or plan for future activities and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals in assessing whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Here, the Petitioner asserted in her personal statement that she intends to continue her research and publish and present her findings. However, she has not provided an explanation of how she intends to continue this research. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(l) (providing, as guidance, the business plan should be detailed and include relevant supporting evidence when appropriate). While the record contains a letter from the departmental administrator atc=]confirming that the Petitioner is currently a research fellow "in the laboratory ofE-C-5 , PhD, Associate Professor" in the I I
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. The record does not similarly support the Petitioner's prospective future funding and interest to advance her endeavor.
Regarding her peer review activities, the Petitioner provided evidence indicating that she reviewed an article for Clinical and Molecular Hepatology. The Petitioner, however, has not offered documentation demonstrating that her peer review experience rises to the level of rendering her well positioned to advance her proposed research. Nor does the record show that the Petitioner's occasional participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in her field or that it is otherwise an indication that she is well positioned to advance her research endeavor.
The record demonstrates the Petitioner has conducted and published research while pursuing her education, 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 in order 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently demonstrated her work has served as an impetus for progress in the field or it has generated substantial positive discourse in the academic community. Nor does the evidence otherwise show her work constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing her research. 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.
C. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial
As explained above, the third prong requires the 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. Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the third 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).
Conclusion
As the record is insufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed research endeavor, she has not established she satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. As such, analysis ofher eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown eligibility for a national interest waiver. p. 6 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 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.