dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Biomedical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 04, 2024 In Re: 33950351 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a biomedical engineer researcher, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
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 classification. See 
section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(national interest waiver), concluding 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. The matter is now before 
us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. 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. 
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) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 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; 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in 
concl uding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature) . 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 
classification as an advanced degree professional. The remaining issues on appeal are whether the 
Petitioner has established the national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first 
prong, that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under the second prong, and that 
on balance waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States under the third prong. 
For the reasons discussed below, we withdraw the Director's finding that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework but agree that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated he is 
well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
In 2020, the Petitioner completed a master of science degree in biomedical engineering in the United 
States. In 2020 he began working as a research assistant at 
Pennsylvania, where he is currently pursuing his doctorate degree. In his national interest waiver 
petition, the Petitioner identified his occupation as biomedical engineer, and his proposed job title as 
postdoctoral researcher. The Petitioner stated his proposed endeavor is to continue his research on 
augmenting current understanding of cognitive processes in the brain and discovering neuroimaging­
based diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for diseases to build customized models for patient 
diagnosis and treatment recommendations. He further stated his work will be circulated in the field 
through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and online-accessible published code. 
In response to the Director's Request for Evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an updated 
statement adding specificity to his proposed endeavor, which he described as researching 
neurobiological mechanisms associated with various brain disorders such as Alzheimer's disease, 
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and major depressive disorder by using statistical 
models to analyze the neuroimage data of patients diagnosed with these disorders and assist in the 
development of new treatments. The Petitioner further broke down his endeavor into three projects, 
which require using machine learning (ML) or deep learning artificial intelligence (Al) models to build 
diagnostic algorithms to, in summary: 
• Aid physicians in making more tailored and effective decisions regarding drug 
recommendations; 
• Discern patterns, relationships, and shared features among different neurodevelopmental 
disorders; and 
• Understand the link between neuropsychiatric symptoms, brain rest-state signals, and the 
expression of specific proteins; and identify predictive markers associated with the 
manifestation of neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer's disease to learn about its 
progression and treatment strategies. 
2 
The Petitioner intends to collaborate with clinicians in hospital settings to validate the models using 
independent datasets. 
The Petitioner submitted documents in support of his national waiver petition, which included: briefs; 
a personal statement and updated personal statement; documents relating to his academic record; 
recommendation letters; peer-reviewed articles; notable citations to his articles; citation data; journal 
rankings; articles on how to interpret citation records; documents relating to his peer-review work, 
industry articles; and agovernment memorandum. On appeal, the Petitioner submitted an appeal brief, 
an updated Google Scholar profile, and a printout of a case cited to in his appeal brief. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The Director detennined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit under Dhanasar 
prong one. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance under this prong, 
we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake" and consider its 
potential prospective impact. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we noted that 
"we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a ]n undertaking may have 
national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular 
field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for 
instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was not nationally important because the 
Petitioner had not established it had significant potential to employ U.S. workers or had other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area. However, as 
discussed above, these are not the only factors that may establish the national importance of a proposed 
endeavor. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor, which falls within a Science, Technology, Engineering, or 
Mathematics (STEM) field, involves better understanding the brain's cognitive processes as it relates 
to disorders through improved Al and ML models analyzing neuroimaging data to assist in better 
diagnoses and treatment of disorders. The Petitioner included the National Science and Technology 
Council's Critical and Emerging Technologies List Update, dated February 2022, and argued his 
proposed endeavor has applications in, for example, artificial intelligence, e.g., the advancement of 
ML, and biotechnologies, e.g., bioinformatics and predictive modeling, which are recognized as 
critical and emerging technologies. He further argued his continued work is critical to the goal of 
achieving and preserving the United States' technological leadership. The Petitioner included letters 
from individuals holding senior positions in academia describing the importance of artificial 
intelligence and computing technologies in optimizing patient healthcare and generating insights into 
cognitive development. He also submitted articles discussing the current use of Al techniques, how 
they aid physicians in diagnosing disorders and their limitations. 
USCIS recognizes the importance of progress in STEM fields and the essential role of persons with 
advanced STEM degrees in fostering this progress, especially in STEM areas important to U.S. 
competitiveness. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/ 
policymanual. The Petitioner has demonstrated that his specific endeavor of improving the 
3 
understanding of brain cognitive processes through ML and Al models is within a critical and 
emerging technology field that would be relevant to the U.S. government's technology leadership 
interests and would have national implications within the field. Furthermore, the Petitioner has 
submitted documentation indicating that the benefit of his proposed research has broader implications 
for the field, as the results would be disseminated to others in the field through scientific journals and 
conferences. Looking at the evidence in its totality, the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated by a 
preponderance of the evidence the national importance of his proposed endeavor. We therefore 
withdraw the Director's determination on this issue and conclude that by establishing the substantive 
merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor, he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
B. Well-positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second Dhanasar prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. Under this prong, to determine whether petitioners 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. Id. 
The Director determined the Petitioner had not established his presented work served as an impetus 
for progress in the field or generated positive discourse in the broader field of biomedical engineering 
to constitute a record of success or progress in his area of endeavor to establish Dhanasar's second 
prong. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director improperly factored in the influence of the 
Petitioner's work in determining he was not well-positioned when Dhanasar does not require the 
Petitioner to demonstrate influence in the field, and therefore held the Petitioner to ahigher evidentiary 
standard by finding he has not influenced his field. The Petitioner also asserts the Director did not 
properly review and weigh all his evidence in analyzing Dhanasar 's second prong. 
The Director did not improperly hold the Petitioner to a heightened evidentiary standard by assessing 
his influence in his field in determining whether he is well-positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor. While we agree that Dhanasar did not specifically mandate a showing of influence as a 
factor to consider whether a petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, the 
decision also did not limit the factors we may consider. See id. at 890 (identifying factors we consider 
under the second prong as "including, but not limited to"). In fact, in finding that the petitioner in 
Dhanasar was well positioned, we relied on, in part, "the significance of the petitioner's research in 
his field" as corroborated by evidence of peer and government interest in his research and consistent 
government funding on his research projects. Id. at 893. 
Moreover, the Director's assessment of the evidence under Dhanasar's second prong is also consistent 
with USCIS policy guidance, which identifies evidence of whether the person's work has influenced 
the field of endeavor as relevant evidence that may demonstrate a petitioner is well-positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(l) 
(providing, as guidance, many examples of evidence that may demonstrate a person is well-positioned 
to advance their proposed endeavor). The Director analyzed the articles in the record that notably 
cited the Petitioner's work, his work as a peer-reviewer, his claims of research funding, his evidence 
4 
of journal rankings, and his citation record in weighing the Petitioner's influence in the field, as one 
of many factors, by assessing, for example, whether his research findings were implemented or 
adopted. While the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not review all of the relevant evidence, as 
discussed below, we conclude the overall record under the applicable preponderance of the evidence 
standard does not show that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his master's degree in biomedical engineering and his current 
work as a researcher at _____ evidence his education, skills, knowledge, and record of 
success and thereby establishes that he is wel I-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
Education, skills, knowledge, and record of success are factors among many that may contribute to a 
finding that a petitioner is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 l&N Dec. at 890. Although the Petitioner asserts that his advanced degree in a STEM field is an 
"especially positive factor," it is not a sufficient basis to determine that he is well positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(2) (providing, as 
guidance, that we look to a variety of factors and education is merely one among many that may 
contribute to whether an individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor). Further, 
while we acknowledge that the Petitioner is currently researching using ML and deep learning 
algorithms to predict treatment response of patients suffering from major depressive disorder, and has 
conducted, published, and presented research while obtaining his master's degree and in obtaining his 
doctorate, he has not demonstrated a record of success in similar efforts with respect to his research, 
as we discuss below. 
The Petitioner also asserts the Director did not give sufficient weight to his publications, citation 
history, and citations to his work. The Petitioner asserts that his publications demonstrate progress in 
achieving his proposed endeavor, and being published in highly ranked journals and being cited by 
other researchers demonstrate his success and interest in his work. 
In the record below, the Petitioner provided a list of several peer-reviewed articles, including two he 
first-authored and one co-authored. Of those listed, he stated two of the articles ranked among the top 
10% of most cited articles in the field according to his Google Scholar profile and Clarivate Analytics 
(CA). The Petitioner did not specify how many citations for each of these individual articles were 
self-citations by him or his coauthors. The Petitioner also submitted data from CA providing baseline 
citation rates and percentiles by year of publication for molecular biology and genetics. However, the 
documentation from CA states that "[cc ]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." Furthermore, the Petitioner does 
not submit evidence evidencing that the baseline citation rates from molecular biology and genetics 
apply similarly to biomedical engineering, which is his claimed research field. The Petitioner also 
asserted that "OpenAlex" data reflects that he is among the top 0.4% of researchers in the field in 
terms of citation impact. However, the evidence does not indicate the source of the data as 
"OpenAlex," and the Petitioner did not show how "OpenAlex" calculates the percentile figures. 
Moreover, citation frequency, which may include self-citations, is quantitative in nature and does not 
reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis. The Petitioner has therefore 
not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his two published articles, in and of 
themselves, reflect a record of success in similar efforts to meet Dhanasar's second prong. 
5 
The Petitioner also submitted recommendation letters, which described the Petitioner's research, the 
studies that cited to or acknowledged the Petitioner's findings, the findings of those studies that cited 
to his work, and claimed his work has immensely benefitted the industry. However, the authors of 
these letters do not provide sufficient detail explaining the significance of the Petitioner's past 
research, or how it has affected the field or industry to demonstrate a history of accomplishment and 
success and progress towards achieving his proposed endeavor. For example, one of the authors 
discussed the Petitioner's use of a model that was able to predict the efficacy of treatments for 
improving mental health and determined, as a result, that the Petitioner has provided medical 
professionals with a powerful new predictive tool for quickly and efficiently transforming patient data 
into actionable insights for treatment purposes. However, the author did not indicate whether medical 
professionals are using the Petitioner's model, and if so, how the Petitioner's model has been used by 
medical professionals or in his field more broadly. The author also did not provide any citations or 
context to corroborate his statements. Another author discussed three studies that cited to the 
Petitioner's work, explaining the researchers incorporated the Petitioner's work into their research, 
but does not describe how relying on the Petitioner's work impacted their work or the field of 
biomedical engineering. In addition, some of his recommendation letters and notable citations refer 
to the Petitioner's work in the cardiovascular field but neither the authors nor the Petitioner provide 
context for how this past research or any of his past research demonstrates a record of success or 
progress towards achieving his proposed endeavor. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at 
F.5(0)(1) (providing, as guidance, examples of evidence establishing a petitioner is well-positioned, 
including letters from experts in the field describing the person's past achievements and specific 
examples of how the person is well-positioned, and evidence demonstrating how the person's work is 
being used by others, such as contracts with companies to use the person's products, patents or licenses 
for innovations the person developed). 
In the record below the Petitioner submitted several published articles citing his work. Many of the 
articles merely list the Petitioner's work in a string citation with other studies, and a few explain the 
Petitioner's use of a ce1iain model, with no further analysis or discourse around, for example, whether 
or how the Petitioner's model was successfully implemented in their research to show that his 
contributions have significantly impacted the field in a related or similar matter. The Petitioner has 
therefore not shown that his work constitutes a record of success beyond having been cited by others 
in their published works. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(0)(1) (providing, as 
guidance, examples of establishing a petitioner is well-positioned, including excerpts of published 
articles showing positive discourse around, or adoption of, the person's work). 
The Petitioner also asserts he has continued to publish research directly related to his proposed 
endeavor and includes a Google Scholar printout of the titles of his work. In the record below he 
provided some of his articles, including a pre- rint article entitled, 
To the extent the article is intended to be reflective of the Petitioner's current 
research, the record does not provide context for the article or how it is relevant to his proposed 
endeavor. Similarly, the Petitioner does not explain in the record the relevance of his newly published 
work to his proposed endeavor to evidence progress towards achieving his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner further argues that the Director completely disregarded his peer review activities. The 
Petitioner provided evidence indicating that he reviewed four articles; however, it is not apparent from 
6 
the feedback forms to whom he is providing his services. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner 
submitted a printout of how to become a reviewer from the website www.elesvier.com. The printout 
provided general advice to possible reviewers, such as finding a journal related to the individual's area 
of expertise. The document does not indicate the company's own selection process or whether the 
Petitioner was selected by Elsevier to perform peer-review work. Further, the Petitioner did not 
explain the significance of his review experience or demonstrate his participation in the widespread 
peer review process represents a record of success in his field or it is otherwise an indication that he 
is well positioned to advance his endeavor. 
The Petitioner asserts his personal statements represent his model plan for his proposed endeavor. 
According to the statements, the Petitioner will work on his proposed endeavor while pursuing his 
doctorate degree, and then his intent is to continue as apostdoctoral researcher at his current university. 
He claims in his appeal brief that, as a research assistant, he has the necessary facilities, faculties, and 
funding to actively further this endeavor. However, as discussed above, the Petitioner's personal 
statements and evidence do not show that his current work relates to his proposed endeavor such that 
his current work demonstrates his experience or evidence of progress towards achieving his proposed 
endeavor. Also, in his personal statements, the Petitioner described his future postdoctoral work and 
research will focus on the vision and auditory pathways in naturalistic tasks, which appears to extend 
outside of his proposed endeavor relating to investigating brain disorders. The Petitioner does not 
explain how his proposed endeavor relates to this proposed postdoctoral work. Further, he has not 
demonstrated that he has funding or approval to continue and advance his proposed endeavor atl II or any other research or academic institution after receiving his postdoctoral degree. 
The Petitioner's evidence also does not demonstrate that he has generated interest among potential 
customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals in his specific proposed endeavor 
involving research on the brain's cognitive processes through improved Al and ML models. In 
Dhanasar, we noted that the petitioner had conducted research and postgraduate research that he 
sought to continue as his proposed endeavor and that he had developed a validated computational 
model and a novel numerical method for calculating data relevant to his proposed endeavor. Id. at 
891. We also discussed the significance of the petitioner's research in his field, which was 
corroborated by evidence of sustained peer and government interest in his research, as well as by 
consistent government funding of the petitioner's research projects. We factored this in determining 
the Petitioner was well-positioned to continue to advance his proposed endeavor. Id. at 893. While 
we acknowledge some of the Petitioner's published research involved the use of models to analyze 
data related to the brain's cognitive processes, the Petitioner has not provided evidence that he himself 
previously received funding for his research or has secured funding to continue pursuing his specific 
proposed endeavor in the future. Rather, the evidence in the record below demonstrated that the 
funding for his research studies were in the name of his co-authors, or to the 
The Petitioner did not provide copies of research grants showing him as a named grant recipient. The 
Petitioner also asserts that his advisory letters evidence that he has generated interest in his work by 
the authors of the letters. However, none of the authors mentioned their or their academic institutions' 
interest in supporting or funding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The Petitioner also states that 
the citations to his work are from researchers all over the globe, who have taken an interest to his 
work. However, he has not demonstrated that this interest is a sustained one or has resulted in 
investment to advance his proposed endeavor. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at 
F.5(0)(1) (providing, as guidance, examples of establishing a petitioner is well-positioned, including 
7 
investment from U.S. investors in his proposed endeavor, or awards or grants or other indications of 
relevant non-monetary support from federal, state, or local government entities with expertise in 
economic development, research and development, or job creation). 
The evidence indicates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research while 
obtaining his master's degree and in currently pursuing his doctorate. 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 his proposed endeavor. Rather, we examine the factors 
set forth in Dhanasar to detennine 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 
potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals supports such a finding. 
Id. at 890. Based on our de nova review, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner 
is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, and the Petitioner has not established that he 
satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
C. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial 
The third prong requires a 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. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884. However, as the Petitioner has not established that he meets the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not shown that he is eligible for and otherwise 
merits a national interest waiver, and we therefore reserve the Petitioner's arguments with respect to 
this issue. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (''courts and agencies are not required to 
make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also 
Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on 
appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
111. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8