dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aerospace Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9969185 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 26, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an aerospace engineer, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer , and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that he is eligible for 
a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S . employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas 
such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's 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. 
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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
1 In announcing this new framework. we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation. 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate 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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 4 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a laboratory assistant at the I I 
TechnologyLJ 5 His responsibilities included "conducting scientific research to develop new 
technologies for aerospace applications and other transportation energy systems, writing papers and 
technical reports, and setting up and operating the laser picture acquisition system for the wind tunnel 
facility." In response to the Director 's request for evidence, the Petitioner provided an October 2019 
letter froml I University indicating that he "was offered and accepted a position as a postdoctoral 
research associate in the Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering atl I University." 
This letter further stated that he "is responsible for conducting research and writing papers and technical 
reports for a U.S. Navy research project supporting the development of high-performance! I 
devices for deployment asl l,"6 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicated that he intends "to continue his research on aerodynamic and automatic 
I I related to aerospace and other transportation systems." He explained that his proposed 
research is aimed at "improving fluid dynamic performance in developing automatic! I 
systems, which are vital for advanced aircraft and maritime applications' performance . The fluid 
dynamic performance is the determinate of aircraft and maritime applications' performance, including 
maximum speed, maneuverabilit and ran e." The Petitioner further stated that his research plans 
involve understanding L--------------------------' and developing 
mathematical lift estimation models ----r----,,-------=----
In his decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated 
the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not shown 
that the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor "has national or global implications" within 
the field. 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Petitioner received a Ph.D. in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering froml I in August 
2018. 
5 The Petitioner previously served as a research assistant aO from October 2012 until August 2017. 
6 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement , it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However , we will consider information about his research positions to illustrate the capacity in which 
he intends to work in order to determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
3 
To satisfy the national importance requirement, the Petitioner must demonstrate the "potential 
prospective impact" of his work. As evidence that the benefit of his proposed research has broader 
implication s in the field , the Petitioner submitted letters from various aerospace engineering professors 
discussing the military and commercial benefits associated with his research aimed at developing 
accurate aerodynamic models. In addition , he presented information about helicopter rotor 
aerodynamics , aerodynamic force modeling , the U.S . military 's development ofl I 
I I, and U.S . military spending relating to lhips jnd planes . The Petitioner also provided 
reports discussing the U.S. Department of Defense's spending and plans for futurel I 
aircraft systems, and a funding announcement from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 
relating to 1 I' Furthermore , the Petitioner has 
submitted documentation indicating that the benefit of his proposed research has broader implications 
for the field , 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 
his proposed research, we conclude that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework and 
withdraw the Director's determination on this issue. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. The record includes 
documentation of his curriculum vitae, academic credentials , published and presented work, peer 
review activity , and participation in projects funded by the U.S . Office of Naval Research (ONR) and 
U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR). The Petitioner also offered evidence of articles 
that cited to his published work , and letters r sujport discussing his graduate work under the guidance 
o~ I his Ph.D. advisor at 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that his education , research experience in aerospace engineering , 
published articles , recommendation letters from others in the field, and research funding from ONR 
and AFOSR demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 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 his proposed research under Dhanasar's 
second prong. 
In letters ~rting the petition , several references discussed the Petirioner's graduate rescirh 
projects atl_J For example , regarding the Petitioner's work involving l _, , 
technology , I I stated that the Petitioner "developed a noye-1 -a-p-pr_(_a_c_h_t_o_u_s_i_n---1g 
technology forl l" I !further asserted that "[t]his system will enhance 
the performance of milita aircraft, as well as make both the military and commercial flight safer by 
automatic on aircraft when they are traveling through! J' 
While.__ ___ __, indicated that the Petitioner '! I system was "demon strated by our 
wind tunnel experiment ," he did not provide specific examples indicating that this system has been 
utilized in military or civilian aircraft , or otherwise constitutes a record of success in the field. 
7 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
With respect to the Petitioner's research relating to the.__ ________ ____.of airfoils,! I 
I L assistant professor a~ l University, stated that the Petitioner investigated and quantified 
"the differences between a I I' I I noted that the Petitioner 
determined "that the'--------------~ constituents contributed to its total lift and 
drag" and that such research is useful for testing future aircraft designs. Likewise, I I 
.__ ___ _.I, associate rofessor at I I University, indicated that the Petitioner found that 
"aerodynami can be studied in ~ l the test airfoil" and 
that "for la , the measured lift history differed greatly from the predictions 
provided b,~ ___ .,....s formula."! ~ further asserted that the Petitioner's work provided 
"researchers with a viable method of testing airfoils," but he and I did not offer examples 
of how the Petitioner's airfoil testing methodology has been implemented, utilized, or applauded in 
the aerospace industry. 
In addition,.__ ______ __, an aerospace research engineer with the U.S. Air Force Research 
Laboratory at Wri ht-Patterson Air Force Base, indicated that he has "collaborated with the petitioner 
to appll his~....,.....,..........,.....,.,..._ technique to the study and development o~ lairfoils."8c=] 
I asserte t at t e Petitioner has "developed al r that used sophisticated, 
nonlinear mathematical tools to predict how aircraft respond to.__ ___________ ~' and 
that this "work is valuable to my own applications within the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory and 
to the academic community at large." I ~ did not provide specific examples indicating that 
the Petitioner'sl l has affected the aerospace industry, has served as an impetus for 
progress or generated positive discourse in his field, or otherwise represents a record of success or 
progress rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
Furthermore,I I assistant professor at University.__ ______ ____, asserted that 
the Petitioner's work has "been acknowledged by his peers in aerospace engineering .... As a specific 
example,! ~' in their 2017 article for the Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, made 
special note of the importance of [the Petitioner's] work forl I research worldwide." 9 
I Is paper, however, does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from 
the more than 120 other articles they cited in their paper. 
For The record includes additional examples of articles which cited to the Petitioner's work. 10 
instance, he presented an article, entitled I 1(2._0_1_7_A_m_e_r_ic-·a-n_l_n-st_i_t1-,t-e-of_A_e_r_o_n_a_u_tz __ c_s_a_1_1d-A-st_r_o_n_a_u_ti-cs__, 
Aerospace Sciences Meeting), in which the authors cited to the Petitioner an;;:c.d::::.!::::I =====!.-ti f aper in 
Experiments in Fluids as one of two examples that "extended upon" thd _ model. 
---------~---_-_- ---
~8 T=h=e"-'r~e-"-co=r-"-d=in=d=ic'-"'a=te"'"s-"'th=a=~---___.._I, =th=e..;c.P...;;.et=it""ionerJ land two others coauthored a paper, entitled '._I __ ..........., 
.__ ______________ ___.t The Petitioner's Google Scholar citation information indicates that this 
paper has received four citations since its oublication in 2017. 
9 The record includes a copy ofl Is paper, entitled ..... l ________________ ....., 
which cited to the Petitioner and h work. With regard tol 
oaoer states: I 
I I tGoman & Khrabrov 1994i /~------.============;' I (Goman & Khrabrov 1994),1.__ ________ __.I 
(Williams et al. 2015),1 l(Luchtenburg et al. 2015)." 
10 Although we discuss representative sample aiiicles here, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
I 
Wh'l th I e e au ors ne y re erence th b . fl f e e I 10ner s wor , e1r a IC e d th P ff kth· rtld oes no I eren ia e IS paper td'ffi f t h. 
from the 27 other naners thev cited. Another article offered bv the Petitioner entitled I 
I c2011 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Applied Aerodynamics 
Conference), also cites to the Petitioner and.I l's paper in Experiments in Fluids, stating: 
~, Again, the article's author does not disti~guish the Petitioner's pap~r from the 22 other papers 
he referenced. 
Regarding the Petitioner's overall citation record] I asserted that the Petitioner's work has 
"been cited over 30 times, which is a high number in the engineering disciplines." As it relates to the 
citation of the Petitioner's work, the record includes Januar 2019 information from Goo le Scholar 
indicatin that his three hi hest cited articles entitled 
I I" and u ~-------------~ 
~------------------~" each received 17, 10, and 8 citations, respectively. 
The Petitioner did not specify how many citations for each of these individual articles were self­
citations by him or his coauthors. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided data from Clarivate Analytics regarding baseline citation rates 
and percentiles by year of publication for various research fields, including "Engineering," "Physics," 
and "Space Science." The Petitioner claimed that his paper coauthored withl I and three 
others, entitled~-------------------~ ranked among "the top 10% 
most-cited articles published in Engineering in 2015" based on the number of citations it has received 
(17) since that time. The Petitioner did not indicate whether he factored in any self-citations in 
determining this percentile ranking. Nor has he sufficiently explained his choice of the field of 
"Engineering," as opposed to "Physics" or "Space Science," as the basis for comparison. In addition, 
the Clarivate Analytics citation data is dated February 2018, and therefore does not capture citations 
that occurred after early 2018, while the Petitioner's Google Scholar citation report is from January 
2019. 11 Because the Clarivate Analytics data is not contemporaneous with the Petitioner's Google 
Scholar data, he has not shown that the former provides a proper analysis of his citation record. 
Moreover, the documentation from Clarivate Analytics states 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." Here, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles 
reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second 
prong. 
Additionally, as it relates to the Petitioner's education, while his Ph.D. fronDrenders 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. 
In Dhanasar, the record established that the petitioner held multiple graduate degrees including "two 
11 A webpage accompanying the Clarivate Analytics information states that its citation "data is updated six times a year" 
(every two months). 
6 
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 is merely one factor among many that may 
contribute to such a finding. 
Regarding his peer review activity, the Petitioner provided emails thanking him for reviewing one 
manuscript submitted to Journal of Flow Control, Measurement & Visualization and two manuscripts 
submitted to International Journal of Acoustics. The Petitioner, however, has not documented the 
stature of the aforementioned journals, nor offered other evidence demonstrating that his occasional 
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 research endeavor. 
The Petitioner also asserted that he has received "funding from major government research agencies, 
including 0NR and AF0SR." He presented five research papers that he coauthored with! I 
and others in which the "Acknowledgements" section noted that their work was supported by 0NR 
and AF0SR. These articles, however, do not identify who among their authors was primarily 
responsible for securing the funding for the research projects. 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 thanl ~ was mainly responsible for obtaining 
funding for their research projects. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during 
his graduate studies atO but he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance 
his proposed aerospace engineering 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 his 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 
his published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the aerospace engineering 
field or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the aerospace industry. Nor does the 
evidence otherwise show that his work constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing 
research relating to~--~---------~ performance. As the record is insufficient to 
demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor, he has 
not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
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. Here, the Petitioner claims that he is eligible for a waiver due to the impracticality of 
labor certification, his expertise in the field, and the importance of his research. However, as the 
Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor as required 
7 
by the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and 
further discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he 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. 
8