dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aerospace Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 16226771 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 16, 2021 
Form I-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 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 asserts 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 of job 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. 
Furthermore, 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 impmiance, 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 offerorforthe petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
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 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCJS, No. 1 7-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USC IS' decision to grant or 
deny a nationalinterestwaiverto be discretionaiy in nature). 
2 
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 concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 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 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated eligibility under Dhanasar's three-prong analytical framework. 
The Petitioner proposes to "work in " The Petitioner ~----------------~ further described: 
A space rendezvous is an orbital maneuver during which two spacecraft[s], one of 
which can be a space station or satellite, arrive at the same orbit and approach to a very 
close distance ( e.g. within visual contact). Rendezvous requires a precise match of the 
orbital velocities and position vectors of the two spacecraft[ s]. Rendezvous may or 
may not be followed by docking or berthing, procedures which bring the spacecraft 
into physical contact and create a link between them. 
The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor met the 
substantial merit and national importance requirements. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the petitioner in order to determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
890. The record includes documentation of his curriculum vitae, academic credentials, published 
articles, and conference presentations and abstracts. He also offered a statement regarding his future 
lans and letters of SU Ort discussin his aduate research and work under the guidance ofn 
---~_d_ir_e_ct~or of at the University ofc=] 
andCEOo 
The record reflects that the Petitioner provided three letters of supportfrom .... l ____ _.I At initial filing, 
I I stated: 
I have overseen [ the Petitioner's] education and research over the course of his Master's 
degree inAstronauticalEngineering. Moving forward to his DoctoralDegree,Ihavebeen 
involved closely with his groundbreaking research as his primary thesis advisor and chair 
of his dissertation committee .... 
3 SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs. 
3 
While working towards the doctorate de ee a the Petitioner has been the lead 
researcher, reporting directly to me, on 
I ~-supported project o -=-~~:~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-d-oc-k-in_g_m-eth-od~s 
for space vehicles to enable next-generation commercial and national security applications 
in Earth orbit. . . . He has resented his research to a consortium ofl I servicin 
companies, the.__ __________________________ ____. 
I L along with representatives from,___ _ __, all of whom are very interested 
in defining how this future regulatory framework will affect the commercial~!--~ 
industry as a whole, both in the US and worldwide .... He has also published the results 
from his significant work and presented it at two subsequen~ I I I which is one of the most prestigious conferences related to astronautical 
engineering that is attended by the international scientific community. 
[The Petitioner] has led a team of twery stu
1
ents and recent engineering graduates to 
design, build, and test a smalll I at to deliver to al I company with 
the goal of delivering their payload to orbit the Earth. This payload, built by our customer 
I I, will enable the next generation ot1 I by bringing to the indus1Iy the 
possibility of software-define:dl I. ... 
In response to the Director's request forevidenceJ~----~' stated: 
[The Petitioner's specific w01k has been recognized in the Space field through his impact 
to the.__ ___ ~cons01iium technical development . . . . The set of risk metrics and 
technical algorithms that [ the Petitioner] created, to define the rocess of safe, low risk, 
and reliable I I are currently bein used b the consortium and their 
member companies to assess their.__ _____ ~ missions for risk and compliance 
to guidelines. 
[The Petitioner] presented information about his critical systems engineering role on the 
thirdl I project out ot-c=] Among the team of over a dozen students that were 
working on this project, [the Petitioner] was the only Systems Engineer for the project, 
and the only one with the skills and the qualifications to perform this role .... 
On appeal,,_! ___ _.I stated: 
[The Petitioner's] work has made additional significant impact and served to advance 
progress in the field as well as affected practices. For instance,c==J submitted the 
first policy guidelines ( as a global worldwide standard for futun{ _ _J activities) to the 
International Standards Organization (ISO) inl I Most spacefaring countries, 
including Russia/China, are part ofISO. Specifically and as stated earlier, [ the Petitioner 
and I contributed technical data (to sections 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 of the.,......... ___ --1 
Recommended Design and Operations Practices document, published on.__ ___ ....,. 
4 
2019) and published internationally recognized papers to hell make the case that the first 
ISO standard for this field should come from I _ . . . . [T]hel I 
leadership presented the policy guidelines to the United Nations Committee on the 
Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UN-COPUOS) on I I 2019 
The other important project I had referenced in the original filinJ concerned I 
D's 3rd I I for the U.S. start-up company,_ I Note 
again that [the Petitioner] played a critical role on the project as the only one with the 
knowledge and qualifications in systems engineering (design and testing of the entire 
spacecraft) and spacecraft dynamics modeling to lead this project .... 
Regarding! l the Petitioner provided several other letters of support discussing the Petitioner's 
research and work while attendin for his graduate studies. 4 For exampleJ I vice 
president o,....... ________ ___, who hostsc=] interns, indicated the Petitioner's work on "the 
design of a support vehicle" referenced b~ I Similarly J I 
lecturer at stated that the Petitioner "was the lead engineer and worked to optimize the overall 
systems and lead a team of around 20 graduate students and professional engineers to integrate the design 
into the final product," and thel ~'will enable the next generation orl lby bringing to the 
industry the possibility of software-definedl I' As it relates tol l the Petitioner offered 
background information about the organization, a copy of the Petitioner's presentation made to 
I I and a copy ofl I' presentations to the United Nations. 
As discussed above, the Petitioner primarily claims eligibility under Dhanasar' s second prong based on 
his graduate work withl land I l 5 As it pertains tol I the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how his role undetj I in leading students and recent graduates in al I test as 
part of his graduate studies reflects that he is well positioned in the field. The Petitioner did not show, for 
example, that the testing has affected the aerospace ore=] field or otherwise represents a record of 
success or progress rendering the Petitioner well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor; the 
record does not indicate an impact in the field beyond! l 6 
Regarding) I working with and under the direction o~ l the Petitioner contributed 
technical data to two sections of the 1 I Recommended Design and Operations Practices 
document," which was presented to the United Nations. Although he assisted! I with the two 
sections of thel I as well as made a presentation before the organization, the 
Petitioner did not establish that the extent of his role and overall contributions tol I sufficiently 
demonstrates that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
4 While we discuss a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 In response to the Director's request for evidence and acknowledged byl ts letter on appeal, the Petitioner 
provided evidence relating to research and projects occurring after the initia I filing of the petition. The Petitioner must 
establish that all eligibility requirements fort he immigration benefit have been satisfied fromthetime of-filing and continuing 
throu ad·udication. See 8 J FR S) 03 2(b)(l). 
6.__...-----,,___, indicated tha I went bankrupt and is now owned byl I who is working on a 
contra ct with him. 
5 
Further, in listing the evidence submitted bfu the Petitioner, the Director indicated "an unsigned FDP Cost 
Reimbursement Subaward."I states that"[t]his could be thd I government funding 
(amount of$300K +) letter, and: 
I also provided a follow up document ( dated 10/11/2019) which shows an increase in 
funding for thel I project based on the outstanding work that I and [the PetitionetJ 
executed, and it was signed b~ I who is~s Contract and Grant 
Officer as well asl I who iLJs Contracts Manager. Again these are 
valid documents that can be provided to certify real funding from a USG agency tCLJ 
that funded [the Petitioner's] work efforts that he contributed directly to. 
Please further note that the funding documents referencec=J as the institution that is 
receiving the government funding. I 1 1 00 ~ 
contracting company that has facilitated the collaboration between! landLJ 
I I The fact that [ the Petitioner's] name is not on the funding documentation should 
not detract, in any way whatsoever, from his recognized, outstanding leadership wotk. It 
is very nmmal and standard procedure in the case of government funding for the institute 
that is receiving funding to be named and not any individual person. On the original 
contracts only the PI (myself) is named as the technical representative, but internal to._l _ _. 
in execute was funded by me througi-e=] to support this effort directly. 
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. Despitd l's claims, the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather 
thanl ~ was mainly responsible for obtaining funding forl l's research projects. 
While LJ as well as other universities and organizations, have designated personnrl to handle 
contracts and funding, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he was essential or critical to I 
receiving such funding. 
In addition, the Director stated that"[ a Jc cording to Google Scholar at the time of filing the [Petitioner] 
had approximately six publications which had received seven citations, in which, the majority of citations 
were self cites by the [Petitioner] and his collaborators." On appeal,I I contends that "I want 
to state that the work [the Petitioner] is doing work [sic] in a field itself that is so pioneering and new that 
it is not possible to have hundreds of citations immediately and it would be inaccurate to compare his 
citations to others in different (more established) fields." The Director, however, did not require the 
Petitioner to have hundreds of citations or compare his citations with others, even in different fields. 
Rather, the Director indicated that his publications received six citations with the majority being self­
citations. We note that while in our Dhanasar precedent decision 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, experience, and 
expertise 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." Id. at 893. Here, the Petitioner 
did not show the significance of his published works or that they garnered a level of interest sufficient 
6 
to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor. Although! I argues that 
the Petitioner "wrote about his research find in s related to in a conference publication" and 
"won Best Paper" at the "I Oth ~------~--_...,.....Conference, as well as presentations in 
other conferences, he did not further elaborate and explain how the field has been affected by the paper 
beyond being later published in a journal after he filed the petition. 
As it pe1iains to the Petitioner's education, while his master of science degree fromc=]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. 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 is merely one factor 
among many that may contribute to such a finding. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted and published research while pursuing his 
master and doctorate degrees aO but he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned 
to advance his 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 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 work has served 
as an impetus for progress in the astronautical field or that it has generated substantial positive 
discourse in the space industry. Nor does the evidence otherwise show that his work constitutes a 
record of success or progress in advancing research relating toOs. 
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. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Further analysis of his eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, 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 demonstrated that 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. 
7