The Petitioner is a researcher who seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and, 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. § l l 53(b )(2).
SCOPS denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (petition), concluding that the record established that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying visa classification, but did not merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 1 The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. Matter ofChrista 's Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion,2 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that:
- The proposed endeavor bas 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
The Petitioner earned the U.S. equivalent of a doctorate degree in Telecommunications from the National Institute of Scientific Research at the I I She also previously earned a foreign master's and bachelor's degree in the same area of concentration. The Petitioner provided a statement when she filed the petition in which she threw a wide net over what her proposed endeavor would be. She stated:
My proposed endeavor is to develop advanced learning algorithms to enhance the accuracy, efficiency, and overall perfonnance of innovative assistive technologies and diagnostic tools used in healthcare systems. To progress this endeavor, I will utilize my extensive experience with speech and audio signal processing, wearable technology, medical image processing, affective computing, and developing and implementing learning models. . . . As an assistant professor (tenure-track), my planned research topics include developing cutting-edge deep learning models for real-time emotion detection and advanced medical image analysis aimed at creating more effective assistive technologies and diagnostic tools.
When SCOPS issued a request for evidence (RFE) and questioned whether her claims relating to the field ofdeep learning and machine learning were adequate to support a waiver in the national interest, the Petitioner amended her statement to claim her proposed endeavor would focus on three research areas:
1. Improving diagnostic tools for cardiovascular diseases and breast cancer through AI-enhanced medical imaging;
2. Developing AI models for the detection of deepfake media; and 3. Mental workload detection using deep learning to improve safety and performance m high-stakes environments.
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Id. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id.
The Petitioner intends to engage in her proposed endeavor while also serving on a tenure-track assistant professor at a U.S. state university's college of engineering. Although she did not offer evidence from the educational institution, when she filed the petition, she claimed she was an assistant teaching professor at the same university. Within SCOPS' RFE, they questioned how much time the p. 3 Petitioner would commit to performing research versus her professorial responsibilities. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided an offer letter from the dean of the university that predated the petition filing date reflecting they expected her to commit 50 percent of her time to research. When SCOPS evaluated the national importance under this prong, they did not acknowledge the dean's letter nor its content. The majority of SCOPS' focus under this prong presumed she would spend most or all of her time working as a professor.
With that issue being resolved, we turn to whether her claims meet the first prong's requirements. And considering the proper focus for her proposed endeavor, we conclude it is ofnational importance under Dhanasar 's first prong.
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.
Under the second prong, the Petitioner claims she has published in prominent journals as well as her work being among the top percentage ofmost cited articles in a respective year, her peer review work, her research has earned funding, others in her field are implementing and have relied on her research findings and how that has influenced the computer science field. Again, SCOPS evaluated the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as an assistant professor instead of focusing on her research in the three areas she identified in the RFE response.
Publication and peer review. Beginning with the claim that the Petitioner has published her findings in prominent journals, we note that a publication bearing a high journal ranking or impact factor is reflective ofthe publication's overall citation rate. But it does not show the influence ofany particular author or otherwise demonstrate how an individual's research represents a record of success in their field. The record also contains the Petitioner's Google Scholar profile, but she did not offer any arguments for that material in the appeal.Citation record not persuasive
Turning to the Petitioner's published work ranking among the top articles in her field during the publication's respective year, she provided citation information concerning the larger field of computer science and compares her citation frequency in artificial intelligence or machine learning to that of the larger field. While we acknowledge that artificial intelligence or machine learning is part ofthe 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 artificial intelligence or machine learning. As a result, the Petitioner's comparison of her citation number in her field with information regarding citations in the larger field of computer science does not sufficiently establish the level of her success or impact in the field of artificial intelligence or machine learning. Regardless, citation frequency is quantitative in nature and it does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis. While we agree with the Petitioner that these citations indicate some degree of interest in her research from her colleagues and p. 4 peers in the field, this evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate a level ofinterest or a record ofresearch success that renders her well positioned.
And the Petitioner reviewed the work of her peers twice for one publication. On appeal, she asserts this "prove[s] her status as an authority in her field." We note that peer review is a routine element of the process by which journals select articles for publication in scholarly journals or for presentation at conferences. Despite her claims, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that two instances of participation in the widespread peer review process and type of review assignment represent a record of success in her field or that they are otherwise an indication that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. Simply participating in the peer review process does not confirm she has meaningfully readied herself to be well positioned.
Funding. Within the appeal, the Petitioner highlights her previous funding from several organizations and the future funding she will reportedly receive as described in a university's job offer letter as an assistant professor.
Beginning with the Petitioner's claims regarding funding for past research, she provided documentation that reflected that for six of the claimed articles in which she served as either the coauthor or the primary author, those research projects received some fonn of funding. Although she was the primary author on more than one paper, these articles do not identify who among their authors was primarily responsible for securing the funding for the research projects. As it stands, the record does not include evidence establishing that the Petitioner was the primary awardee or recipient of any grant funding, nor does the record reflect the amount of funding received. 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 her coauthors or advisors, for example-was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects. And she has not offered any other evidence to demonstrate she was responsible for the funding; for example, in grants or proposals showing she was the primary award contact.
Turning to future possible funding, the record lacks evidence that she has received any funding stemming from the position she was offered as an assistant professor, from either the university or from external sources as the offer letter described. In fact, also absent is any material demonstrating she accepted the assistant professorship and began working in that job to put herself in a position to receive the funding reportedly available from the university. The Petitioner characterizes the job offer letter as stating she would receive funding and support with an approximate value of $430,094. But we note that figure includes a portion of the Petitioner's salary, and the letter indicates she is expected to obtain external funding from federal agencies at approximately $100,000 per year.
Regarding the future funding from the university, the offer letter reflected a start date before she filed the petition meaning she should have been able to provide evidence that she accepted the position as well as materials reflecting at least a portion of the funding details in the offer letter were achieved. The letter stated the offer was contingent upon her successful completion of a background check and the required documentation showing she was authorized to work in the United States in that capacity, but she did not submit evidence that she provided those materials. p. 5 l
In summary, questions remain regarding both her past and future funding meaning she has not corroborated her claims relating to obtaining funding. As it relates to funding, she has not shown a record ofsuccess in related or similar efforts or any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor. Impacts in her field. The Petitioner asserts her work is influencing her field and that other researchers are implementing her work. In support of this claim, she references two support letters and relies on citations to her work, as well as the university's offer letter. First is the letter froml an associate professor. Dr. I Iexplained that in their own research, his group relied on a methodology the Petitioner described in one of her works. But he failed to identify the title of his ~hed work leaving us unable to evaluate the extent to which her work was influential on his. Dr. L__J also offered second-hand information explaining that other researchers have relied on her findings. But his second-hand account does not explain how that resulted in any measurable impact within the field other than incrementally or nominally. Nominal reliance on the Petitioner's work among her peer group is not sufficient to show she is well positioned under the Dhanasar framework. Id. at 890.
The second letter from another professor the Petitioner identifies in the appeal also will not aid in her efforts here. This letter merely reflected that "[b ]ased on her published work, it is clear that she has made meaningful contributions to the field, particularly in the area of emotion and stress recognition within challenging acoustic environments," that she "appears to be thoughtful and innovative, addressing complex issues in speech emotion recognition (SER) and stress detection," and that those "contributions, as I understand, have positively influenced related areas and demonstrate her ability to push forward research boundaries in SER technology." But the letter does not establish how she is well positioned to advance her endeavor.
Regarding citations, it is unclear what evidence the Petitioner relies on in her appeal as it does not align with the citation record documents she offered in the initial filing, nor in response to the RFE that included some post-petition-filing citations. We note the Petitioner may not rely on any post-filing achievements as a request for an immigration benefit "must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and must continue to be through adjudication." 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ). Any additional evidence submitted in connection with a benefit request at a later date, including evidence responding to a request from USCIS, must also establish "eligibility at the time the benefit request was filed." 8 C.F .R. § 103.2(b )(12).
When she filed the petition, she garnered 71 total citations with the highest individual work receiving 19 cites. The Petitioner, however, did not specify how many citations were self-citations by her or by her coauthors. Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted data from Clarivate Analytics (CA) regarding baseline citation rates and percentiles by year of publication. The Petitioner claimed that at least five of her papers are among the most highly cited in the Clarivate In Cites Essential Science Indicators field of computer science for their respective publication years. Again, it is unclear whether any of these figures rely on self-citations. Also, the documentation from Clarivate reflects that "[ c ]itation frequency is highly skewed, with many infrequently cited papers and relatively few highly cited papers. Consequently, citation rates should not be interpreted as representing the central tendency of the distribution." Stated differently, the Petitioner did not sufficiently show the reliability of these figures.
Finally, the Petitioner references the university offer letter to discuss the funding and support; aspects we already established have shortcomings. She also claims she leads a laboratory at the same university. The evidence relating to this laboratory is not from the university's website and it states their team is led by the Petitioner and seeks to perform research in the areas of speech signal processing, machine learning, data science, and deep learning. While this could serve as a positive aspect under this prong, the Petitioner has not shown its nexus to the university and her appeal brief does not identify what, if any, evidence from the university might corroborate her claim that she leads the team in the laboratory on behalf of the university. Notably, a review of a supp01i letter from one ofher university colleagues does not even mention her work at the laboratory.
Disconnect between her research and the proposed endeavor. And revisiting the three numbered items under Section III above, it is important to note that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any of her past research relates to items 1 or 2, and only her work with speech and emotion relates to item 3. In other words, the Petitioner's history does not appear to adequately support her contention that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. This further demonstrates that based on the claims in this petition, the Petitioner has not established a record of success in related or similar efforts that the Dhanasar decision requires. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
Not every person who has conducted original research and published findings will be found to be well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Rather, we must examine the factors outlined in the Dhanasar decision to determine whether, for instance, the individual's education, skills, and record of success, their model or plan for future activities, their progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and the generation of interest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. In Dhanasar, we concluded that the significance of his research was "corroborated by evidence of peer and government interest in his research, as well as by consistent government funding of his research projects." And that his "education, experience, and expe1iise in his field, the significance of his role in research projects, as well as the sustained interest of and funding from government agencies" rendered him well positioned. Considering the entire record, including the fact that the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the ability to pursue her proposed endeavor in the United States through the claimed employment and funding, we conclude that she has not established that she is wellpositioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
C. We Reserve the Remaining Issue on Appeal
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts she meets additional eligibility requirements under the Dhanasar analytical framework, but she has not satisfied Dhanasar 's necessary second prong. Because this shortcoming is dispositive of the appeal, we reserve our opinion regarding the remaining issues. Where a case warrants a denial regardless of other eligibility considerations, it is unnecessary that we address those other considerations. Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 332 (2022) (citing INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (finding agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision)); see also Matter ofBuri Mora, 29 I&N Dec. 186, 188 (BIA 2025) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where a filing party is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. We therefore conclude that she has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
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.