dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aerospace Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8568610 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 21, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an aerospace engineering researcher, 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 Texas 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 research engmeer in the School of Aerospace 
Engineering at.__ ___________________ 5 
A Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicated that he intends to continue his research involving 'I I structural designs, 
multidisciplinary strategies, analysis, optimization, surrogate modeling techniques, and effective 
computational! I tools." He asserted that his proposed research is aimed at "the 
application ofl I network techniques, which are developed through! l to 
aerospace engmeenng problems." The Petitioner farther stated that his undertaking involves 
developing '~-------- algorithms," applying 'c=J learning techniques to engineering 
surrogate modeling," and designing "intelligent aerospace/infrastructural systems." 
The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit and national importance. For example, the Petitioner presented a strategic plan from 
the U.S. National Science and Technology Council discussing the research and development 
investments needed to help define and advance policies that ensure the responsible, safe, and beneficial 
use of artificial intelligence. He also provided information about employment in the U.S. aerospace 
and defense industry and the number ofjobs supported by the industry. In addition, the record includes 
documentation indicating that the benefit of the Petitioner's proposed research has broader 
implications, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through engineering journals and 
conferences. As the Petitioner has documented both the substantial merit and national importance of 
his proposed aerospace engineering research, we agree with the Director's determination that he 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 Petitioner. The record includes 
documentation of his curriculum vitae, academic credentials, published articles, conference 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. ~_.._____,. ______ ~ 
4 The Petitioner received a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering rrom.__ _________ __,in May 2012. 
5 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer rrom 
a specific employer. However, we will consider information about his position 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 
presentations, and peer review activity. He also offered evidence of articles that cited to his published 
work, and letters of support discussing his past research projects. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that he "has provided evidence of his expertise, his education, skills 
and knowledge." He maintains that "[h]e has a demonstrated and documented record of success, and 
his work has attracted the interest ofrelevant entities and individuals." The Petitioner farther indicates 
that that he provided letters of support from "highly respected leaders in the field" attesting to his 
research contributions. 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 su porting the petition, several references discussed the Petitioner's research projects at 
...===~==!.:..·~
6 
For example, I f, senior process leader at.__.,------.--------' 
indicated that the Petitioner was "primary inventor" of the tool, a web 
~a_p_p_li_c-at-io_n_u-se~d to monitor and L'redictl I energy usage. ~----~ xp amea that "[t]he 
premise behind thel j tool was developed over the course of numerous research projects, 
launching its first version in 2013." He farther stated: "The Petitioner] and his peers proposed a 
I I approach to model, simulate, and forecast the electricit demand by factoring 
in available time information and weather data." Additionally, ~----~asserted that the 
Petitioner "contributed to the development of efficient data analytic techniques to glean key 
information from a large pool of data, ultimately shedding new light on the way the I I consumes 
energy." I I also claimed that the Petitioner's methods "can be extended to the energy 
sector," but he does not offer specific examples of their application by organizations in that sector. 
Nor has the Petitioner shown thatl I has been implemented, utilized, or applauded by 
others in the field. 
Furthermore, , chief scientist in the .--~--------------------' at~----~ stated: "Under the sponsorship of~----~[ the Petitioner] facilitated numerous 
research projects to predict the future of sensory measurements in infrastructural s stems, such as 
building energy consumption." Regarding the Petitioner's development o~f====+"" _____ ___. 
based analysis techniques for large scalel I networks, indicated that he 
"assisted in the creation of a~ _________ __,,...,..,network model usin ____ ~' I I 
asserted that the Petitioner's "model enabled the precise exploration of design spaces formed from 
o tions and operational settings. Moreover, the model can be farther adapted ~---------.- ........... '----, 
and calibrated to real data which will result in relevant information on an operating! I I I system." While~--~contended that based on the Petitioner's 1 I baseline, 
future research studies can identify new technology additions and improve I I system 
performance," the Petitioner has not shown that hisl I work stands to be utilized for analyzing 
I I systems beyond the~-------~ has affected the aerospace engineering field, or 
otherwise constitutes a record of success in his area of research. 
6 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
i._ ____ __.6oted that he "worked extensively with [the Pe;:.:t;:;..:it.:;.:;io;.:;;:n.=..:e1'-..l.·]....::o""n....::a;~--__,,.. .... c=om=b=in=e=d--=c.....,cle power plant 
predictive analysis tool" as part of the I I project at! !for which "was Program 
Manager." 
4 
With respect to the Petitioner's research involving application of a .__ __________ ____. 
..c=J to predict I I lift coefficient, I I professor of mechanical engineering at 
L_Juniversity, asserted that the Petitioner "collaboratively trained multip~structures to learn 
the lift coefficients of th~ I with numerous shapes in multiple flow ~umbers, I ) I 
numbers and verse I I" I I further stated that "[t]he outcomes of this study 
lay the groundwork for future research in aerospace engineerinr and related fields, specifically 
researchers interested in harnessing well-developed! ] techniques in image recognition 
tasks for elgineerTgl !tasks," but he does not offer specific examples of how the 
Petitioner's has generated positive interest among relevant parties, has been utilized in the 
aerospace industry, or otherwise represents a record of success in his field. 
In regard to the Petitioner's work on thel loroject, g 
~----~ director of the I I at I 0 
indl'cate<l that tve Petitioner was responsible for developmg and conflrmmg the mathematical model 
for_ =- hilt-Rotor performance.I lstated that the Petitioner "created a prototypical 
model of the I I class" and "proposed an original method td I two distinct flight 
modes by unifying the logic for measuring! I [The Petitioner's]! I 
model resulted i~ I estimations of all performance metrics, such as fuel bums, payload weight, 
cruise speed, and range." The record includes a Google Scholar citation report indicating that the 
aforementioned work presented at the0American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) 
Aviation Technol~ntegration, and Operations Conferencd , I has received three citations since 
its publication inl__J The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that this number of citations 
constitutes a record of success or a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet 
Dhanasar's second prong. 
As it relates to the citation of the Petitioner's work, his appellate submission includes June 2019 
information from Google Scholar indicating that his three highest cited articles in AIAA/American 
Society of Civil Engineers/American Helicopter Society/American Society for Composites Structures, 
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference (2018), American Society of Mechanical Engineers 
8th International Conference on Energy Sustainability (2014), and International Conference on Big 
Mining and Big Data (2016) each received 12, 5, and 4 citations, respectively. The Petitioner does 
not specify how many citations for each of his individual articles were self-citations by him or his 
coauthors. Moreover, he does not indicate how many of the citations occurred in papers published 
prior to or at the time of initial filing. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). Nor does the Petitioner offer comparative statistics showing the significance of this 
level of citation within his field. 
Regarding his peer review activity, the Petitioner provided an email indicating that he was invited to 
review a paper for Applied Energy in I 12018, but he did not provide evidence showing that 
he completed the review. In addition, the invitation post-dates the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). Regardless, the Petitioner has not documented the stature of this journal or offered 
other documentation demonstrating that his peer review experience rises to the level of rendering him 
well positioned to advance his proposed aerospace engineering research. Nor does the record show 
that the Petitioner's 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. 
5 
Additionally, while the Petitioner's Ph.D. froml I 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. 
The evidence indicates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research while 
working at I I 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 shown 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 engineering community. Nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that 
his work constitutes a record of success or progress in machine learning, surrogate modeling, and 
intelligent aerospace/infrastructural systems design. As the record is insufficient to show 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 his research experience 
and accomplishments, the importance of his field, and the impracticality of labor certification. 
However, as the Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor as required 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 find 
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. 
6