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).
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 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.
Ifa 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 filin the Petitioner was working as a graduate research assistant at I I 3 She indicated that she is pursuing her Ph.D. in Computer L..-----...----..,.._-------' Science at .___~and that her proposed endeavor involves developing secure communication frameworks, mitigating protocol-based vulnerabilities, and enhancing electronic control unit (ECU) security in automotive systems. The Petitioner explained that she planned to design robust methods to authenticate automotive messages without compromising real-time performance, ensuring critical signals like braking commands are delivered securely and promptly. In addition, she stated that her work was aimed at identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities in Controller Area Network (CAN) and Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) protocols to prevent attackers from delaying or disrupting safetycritical messages. She also indicated that she intended to leverage trusted execution environments (TEEs) to secure automotive ECUs against advanced threats, including relay attacks, side-channel attacks, and unauthorized access, while balancing security requirements with resource constraints. 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 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. We agree with SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit.
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 her proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong. As evidence that her proposed research has substantial merit and national importance, the Petitioner presented information about cybersecurity threats to vehicles, digital auto theft, and deployment of driverless cars. She also provided letters of support discussing how her undertaking contributes to advancements in the 2 The Petitioner received a Master of Engineering degree (2023) from.________________, 3 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for her to have a job offer from a specific employer. However, we will consider information about her research position to illustrate the capacity in which she intends to work in order to dete1mine whether her proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar framework. p. 3 development of secure communication frameworks, mitigating protocol-based vulnerabilities, and enhancing automotive cybersecurity. Additionally, the Petitioner submitted documentation indicating that the benefit of her proposed research offers broader implications for vehicular network security, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through scientific journals and conferences. 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. 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. For the reasons explained below, we withdraw SCOPS' conclusion that the Petitioner meets Dhanasar 's second prong.
The record includes documentation of the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, master's degree, association memberships, professional certificates, student awards, programing projects, participation in student competitions ( such as.__ ___________, andI ~' published and presented work, and peer review service. The Petitioner also offered evidence of articles that cited to her published work and letters of support discussing her graduate research.
In letters supporting the petition, the Petitioner's references discussed her graduate research projects involving vehicle cybersecurity.4 For example, Dr. J-K-, a professor at I Iindicated that the Petitioner performed "a meticulous analysis of the schedulability and response time of authentication mechanisms in automotive systems." Dr. J-K- further asserted that the Petitioner's research "offers innovative solutions to ensure the safety and integrity of vehicle operations" and "deepens our understanding of these intricate systems." While the Petitioner's research helped improve understanding ofreal-time systems security mechanisms, she has not demonstrated the extent to which her specific findings are being utilized in the automotive industry. Nor has she otherwise shown that her findings constitute a record of success or progress rendering her well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
In addition, Dr. G-B-, an associate professor at stated: "[The Petitioner's] work on the research paper titled
." He also stated that " h er research
Likewise, U-J-, senior vice president atl Iindicated that the Petitioner's "published work, which includes an analysis of Message Authentication Code (MAC) protocol on the schedulability of CAN and extended CAN networks, provides a framework to balance security and real-time performance." He further stated that the Petitioner "has participated in several national initiatives and challenges, including I l and the~------~' and that "her participation and assessment of these vehicles further demonstrate her active role in advancing transportation security," but the Petitioner has not shown that the level of interest in her work or her research progress is sufficient to demonstrate she is well positioned.No interest from users, customers or investors
As it relates to the citation ofthe Petitioner's work, the Petitioner provided her Google Scholar profile from July 2024 listing her three published articles. This information from Google Scholar indicates that her article, entitled "I
L....,,.......,,-----,--.,..------==----,-------,----,-,-------,---,---,--;---------, ' 2023 , received five citations. Her other research articles, entitled "I I ---------------~~''(2023) and '1 I
.__________________________.' (2024), had not received any citations as of July 2024. In response to SCOPS' request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a February 2025 Google Scholar profile listing additional citations her published articles received that post-date the October 2, 2024 filing of the Form I-140 petition. 5 These later citations provided in response to the RFE do not establish her eligibility at the time of filing.Citation record not persuasive See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). Without statistical evidence or other objective metrics comparing the number of citations received by the Petitioner's articles with others in her field, she has not demonstrated her work has garnered interest at a level consistent with being well positioned to advance her proposed research 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. 6 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 plan for future activities, she submitted a personal statement discussing her intent to continue her research after receiving her Ph.D. She stated that she planned to expand her research into securing TSN for aviation and industrial automation, leveraging lessons from automotive cybersecurity; to apply for National Science Foundation (NSF) funding opportunities to support largescale deployment of my CAN-TSN security frameworks; and to collaborate with U.S. national labs and government agencies to explore cybersecurity. With respect to the Petitioner obtaining a future For example, the citation count for ·j l
I5 I' increased from five to ten citat .... io_n_s-an-d-th_e_c_ou_n_t_f_01_· ,~1---------------------'] I t' increased from zero to two citations.
research position after graduation, she did not provide documentation from any organizations or institutions showing their communications relating to availability of a research position or identifying the specific research projects they have available. 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.
The Petitioner indicates that her work has contributed to NSF-funded projects and has been supported by state-level funding. 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 her professor) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects. Regarding her peer review activity, the Petitioner provided two invitations asking her to review papers for Recent Patents on Engineering and Archives ofAdanced Engineering Science. She also claimed to have served as a peer reviewer for the I l the I l the I
I, and thel
I The Petitioner, however, did not submit evidence showing that she completed the aforementioned journal and conference paper reviews. Regardless, she has not demonstrated that her 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. Nor has she demonstrated that her association memberships, professional certificates, student awards, and programing projects render her well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 7 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 endeavor. 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 automotive cybersecurity 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.
C. Whether on Balance a Waiver is 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. Id. 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. In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements ofa job offer and thus of a labor certification. Id. at 891.
In denying the petition, SCOPS' decision indicated that "the evidence does not establish that [the Petitioner's] current research endeavor will benefit the nation in order to forgo the requirements of a job offer and labor certification process." SCOPS determined that the Petitioner "does not appear to have skills or duties that could not easily be articulated in a labor certification." The decision also stated that the evidence did not show "that there is an urgency in [the Petitioner's] contributions sufficient to warrant forgoing the labor certification process."No urgency shown
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that her research "projects are grant-funded, collaborative, and constantly evolving" and that her position "is fundamentally incompatible with a static employerbased certification process." We acknowledge the impracticality of obtaining a labor certification for a graduate student.
In addition, the Petitioner asserts that her "specialized expertise is rare in the U.S. labor market" and that there is "a national shortage in cybersecurity professionals." We are not persuaded by the argument that a national interest waiver is warranted due to the shortage of workers in the Petitioner's field.Relied on a labor shortage Here, the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage. Moreover, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. The Petitioner also claims that her research "aligns with objectives in the National Cybersecurity Strategy" and "is actively integrated into federally funded projects and public safety initiatives." For Dhanasar 's third prong, we assess whether the proposed endeavor and the individual being well positioned to advance that endeavor, taken together, provide benefits to the nation such that a waiver of the labor certification requirement outweighs the benefits that ordinarily flow from that requirement. 8 Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor or that her automotive cybersecurity contributions supersede the benefits of protecting the domestic labor supply inherent in the labor certification process.
While the record includes information about cybersecurity threats to vehicles, digital auto theft, and critical and emerging technologies, this information is insufficient to show that the national interest is better served by a waiver of the job offer and thus the labor certification requirement. The labor 8 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, F.5(D)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. p. 7 certification process is intended to ensure that the admission of foreign workers will not adversely affect the job opportunities, wages, and working conditions of U.S. workers. We acknowledge the inapplicability oflabor certification, the Petitioner's master's degree in a STEM field ( engineering), her graduate research experience, and her findings relating to real-time systems security. The evidence in the aggregate, however, is not sufficient to show that a national interest waiver outweighs the benefits inherent to the labor certification process.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
The Petitioner has not shown that she offers contributions of such value that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second and third prongs ofthe 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.
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. § 103.5(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.