The Petitioner, a researcher, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member ofthe 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. § l 153(b)(2).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner demonstrated his eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, he 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 ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&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 a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 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 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
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
SCOPS determined 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 of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest.
The Petitioner indicates he intends to pursue employment as a research scientist in the United States. At the time of filing, the Petitioner was pursuing his Ph.D. in computer science at the I I I 1- In a supporting statement, the Petitioner indicated that he has "extensive experience in applying artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LL Ms) to enhance cybersecurity ," and explained that he intends to continue this line of research in the United States. He farther stated:
More concretely, I plan to apply my expertise in AI-driven vulnerability detection and prevention to protect critical software infrastructures. . .. Expanding on this research in an American academic or industrial setting would allow me to integrate cutting-edge AI tools into the development and maintenance of secure software systems. This effort can significantly bolster the nation's resilience against cyberattacks and reduce risks for government agencies, healthcare organizations, financial institutions and other sectors vital to U.S. industries.
In response to SCOPS' request for evidence, the Petitioner farther specified that his research will focus on "developing more proactive, scalable and efficient tools for cybersecurity tasks, such as bug discovery, vulnerability evaluation, and automated bug fixing," leveraging AI techniques such as LLMs. In addition, he stated that he intends to apply his research to "other challenging software systems, including large-scale software repositories and critical infrastructure," and to work closely with technology companies, open-source organizations and government agencies to deploy his tools for securing critical infrastructure. In the long term, he envisions "leading a research team that pioneers AI-based solutions to emerging cybersecurity challenges," and in parallel, "helping train the next generation ofU.S.-based researchers and engineers equipped to maintain the country's leadership in technological innovation and national security."
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.
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. 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. An endeavor may have national importance because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. Id. As evidence that his proposed research endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, the Petitioner presented published information pertaining to his field and evidence ofnational initiatives related to advancing cybersecurity technology. He also provided letters of support discussing how his specific research contributes to advancements in methods and tools used to detect vulnerabilities in software systems, improving both security and reliability. Additionally, the Petitioner submitted documentation indicating that the benefit of his proposed research offers broader implications for the field, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through scientific journals and conferences. Accordingly, we withdraw SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor, he has established that he meets 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 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.
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that SCOPS failed to review all the relevant evidence submitted in support of the second prong and erroneously applied factors that are applicable to Dhanasar' s third prong in determining that he is not well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. We agree that SCOPS' analysis ofthe second prong contains language that is more appropriate to a third prong analysis and does not discuss all the Petitioner's evidence in detail. However, SCOPS appropriately and adequately addressed deficiencies in the record relating to his model or plan for future activities, evidence ofhis progress toward achieving the proposed endeavor, and whether he has obtained sufficient interest or support to move the endeavor forward. Upon de novo review, and for the reasons discussed below, we agree with SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner has not satisfied the second prong. The record includes documentation of the Petitioner's curriculum vitae (CV), bachelor's and master's degrees, published and presented work, and peer review service. The Petitioner also provided his citation history, evidence of articles that cited to his published work, and letters of support that discuss his graduate research at I ~ The Petitioner states that his "academic achievements, p. 4 technical expertise and research accomplishments position him as an expert capable of addressing critical challenges in cybersecurity."
As it relates to the Petitioner's education, while his master's degree in computer science 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. 3 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 and skills are merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding.
The Petitioner further contends that his publication record, his "notable" citation record, and his peer review service show that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed research endeavor.
The Petitioner states that four of his five co-authored articles were published in "highly ranked peerreviewed conferences and journals" including the Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages and USENIX Security. 4 A publication's ranking or impact factor reflects the publication's overall citation rate. As a result, while the elevated ranking of these journals may be one factor contributing to a showing of an individual researcher's record of success, we may not assume that every article published in a high-ranking journal is indicative of such success. For example, although the Petitioner provided evidence that he co-authored a paper published in USENIX Security, ranked second among journals and conferences in "Computer Security and Cryptography," the record indicates that this article had not received any citations.
The Petitioner also indicates that he has participated in the peer review process for a journal in his field and provided evidence that he reviewed one manuscript for the journal shortly before he filed his petition. He did not explain the significance of his limited review experience or demonstrate how 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 proposed endeavor. In addition, the Petitioner provided his Google Scholar profile from December 2024, showing that he had published five co-authored papers in conference proceedings between 2021 and 2024, with 99 cumulative citations to his work. The information rovided indicates that his three hi hest cited articles, entitled 'L..,--------------------------------....,J 1 ~, c2024); ·~-----------------~
(2023); and'
~-------------------------------~
(2023) had received 69, 25 and 3 citations, respectively. 5 While the Petitioner stated in his cover letter that his publication and citation records show "an unusually strong record of success for a researcher in cybersecurity," he did not provide comparative citation data for researchers in his field or other relevant evidence to support this claim. A reference letter from Dr.I la professor atl lwho is listed as a co-author on the Petitioner's two most-cited papers, remarks that the Petitioner's publications had already been cited by others in the field "more than 100 times" in a "relatively short amount of time." However, the professor does not indicate how the Petitioner's publication record compares to that of others in their shared field. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the number of citations received by his published articles at the time of filing reflects a record of success or a level ofinterest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar 's second prong.No interest from users, customers or investors
The Petitioner also highlighted several "notable" citations to his work to supplement his Google Scholar citation record, by providing excer ts from ori inal research articles that referenced his ublications. For exam le the authors of'
'--------------------------' " cite the Petitioner's paper as one of five "recent studies" showing that LLMs "exhibit significant potential in understanding code semantics" and can be used for a variety of tasks such as ro ram anal sis, virus detection and vulnerability identification." The authors of'
I t' similarly cited to the Petitio._n_e_r_'s-re_s_e_a-rc--h-as_o_n_e_o_f_m_a_n_y-re_c_e_n_t_s-tu_d_i_e_s-th_a_t_h_a_v__.e "demonstrated the superiority of LLMs over traditional program analysis methods." The author of '1 t' cites the Petitioner's work as being among "a
and impact of his research, and I am confident that his contributions will continue to shape the future of AI-driven software security." Similarly, a professor at I I opines that he has "no doubt that [the Petitioner] will continue to make significant contributions to this vital field," while a partner research manager atl !states that he believes the Petitioner "will continue to excel as a researcher and thought leader in this critical area." While the authors highlight the publication of the Petitioner's work at a prestigious conference in 2024, their letters do not provide sufficient support for a determination that his research achievements to date constitute a record of success that renders him well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, either when considered individually or collectively with other evidence relevant to Dhanasar' s second prong.
In evaluating whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, we have also considered his model or plan for future activities; any progress he has made towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The Petitioner stated on his petition that he intends to pursue employment as a research scientist.
As noted, the Petitioner was a Ph.D. student atl lwhen he filed the petition in December 2024 and had just completed his master's degree. He indicates that upon completion of his Ph.D., he plans to extend his research to "streamline threat monitoring and code analysis" in an "American academic or industrial environment," and will seek collaborative opportunities with "cybersecurityfocused organizations and research teams at U.S. universities, national labs and private companies." The Petitioner explained that in the long term, he envisions "leading a research group dedicated to discovering and patching emergent vulnerabilities in complex software ecosystems," as well as teaching and mentoring "the next generation of cybersecurity professionals."
Based on this statement, it appears the Petitioner intends to pursue his research endeavor either at a U.S. university or other research institution or with a private company. He did not provide documentation from any institution, organization or company showing their communications or identifying the specific research projects he intends to pursue on the organization's behalf Further the record lacks evidence sufficient to establish the Petitioner's pursuit of such employment or of any organization's interest in employing him as a research scientist in an academic or industrial setting. In cases such as this one, where the Petitioner does not intend to be self-employed, a job offer or communications with prospective employers, while not required, may be relevant to demonstrate the circumstances or capacity in which the person intends to carry out the proposed endeavor and the feasibility of that plan. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra at 5.F(D)(3). Without sufficient evidence demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake his proposed research in the United States, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his plan for future activities renders him wellpositioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 6
An additional factor applicable to the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework is whether the Petitioner has garnered interest or support from potential customers, users, investors or other relevant entities or persons. We have already considered the Petitioner's publications, citation history, 6 For example. the Petitioner did not offer evidence showing that he has received funding for his research proposals or future projects. In Dhanasar, the record established that the petitioner "initiated" or was the "primary award contact on several funded granted proposals" and that he was ·'the only listed researcher on many of the grants." Id. at 893, n. 11. p. 7 reference letters and other submitted evidence, and for the reasons discussed, found that this evidence is insufficient to show that he has obtained sufficient interest or support to make him well-positioned to pursue his endeavor. The Petitioner has also emphasized that two of his published papers were supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, but he has not sufficiently explained or documented his own role in obtaining those grants or indicated that he is currently conducting grantfunded research. By comparison, in Dhanasar, we noted that the record included "detailed expert letters describing U.S. Government interest and investment in his research" and "documentation that the petitioner played a significant role in projects funded by grants from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ("NASA") and the Air Force Research Laboratories ("AFRL") within DOD." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 892-893. Here the record does not reflect sufficient interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
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 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 research-based 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. Here, the Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently demonstrated that his graduate work constitutes a record of success or progress in cybersecurity research rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Further, the record does not adequately support the feasibility of the Petitioner's plan for employment as a research scientist "in an American academic or industrial environment." Accordingly, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, he has not demonstrated that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. This identified reason for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, and thus, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning his eligibility under the third prong of the Dhanasar framework. 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).
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 ofa 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.