dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Chemical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11244099 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 18, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a postdoctoral fellow in chemical engineering, 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 imp01iance, 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 
The Petitioner ro oses "to ex and [his] research to design fuell I for 
,.__ ____ _,,-----------,-J combustion by understanding the breakdown mechanisms and 
prope1iy relationships" and "to design a fuel I I 
1----___,.a_b__,le to expand the operational speed and load inl I engines to fully take advantage 
of their environmentally-friendly features." 
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 funding sources. He also offered evidence of articles that cited to his published wotk, 
information on journals that published his work, and letters of supp01i discussing his graduate and 
postdoctoral research. For the reasons discussed below, the record supp01is 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 supporting the petition, several references discussed the Petitioner's graduate research 
projects atl Jpuiversitv audl luniversity. 4 For example, in discuslingl 
the Petitioner's research usingl Ito transform samples into bio-crude oil, 
--------~s_ta_t_e_d_t_h_a~t the Petitioner "determined that bio-crude oils obtained through 
have a calorific value of 36-38 MJ/k which is close to petroleum" 
and "discovered that'------.---,=============.---------- successfully 
removed dissolved solids as well asL_ ___ _,------,_~____J ions dissolved solids from brine." 
Although he opined that" t his examination o brine rovided energy researchers with a 
new source for concentrate management and roduction while simultaneously 
lowering emissions of~----~ through photosynthesis, ~----~did not provide specific 
examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has been utilized in chemical engineering or otherwise 
constitutes a record of success in the field beyond "inclu[ sion] in several review articles," discussed 
later. 
3 SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs. 
4 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
Likewise,! I commented that the Petitioner's research "is a unique feat of chemical 
engineering, and it has certainly drawn my interest," and he has "referred to [thePetitionergfin in 
on ~ to further contextualize my findings and to validate their accuracy." Whil 
indicated that the Petitioner's "work has helped me complete an exhaustive analysis o 
I I that is relevant to the design and execution of future research projects in the field," he does 
not offer examples of how the Petitioner's research and other findings have been implemented, 
utilized, or applauded in the field beyond being cited by others in their published works. 
Additionally J f stated that the Petitioner's "study onl I in spark ignition 
engine fuel was divided into two parts, the first concerning automation of the process of finding new 
._____,.... _ ___._t..,.o'""'b""'e.......,used as fuels and the second examinin~ land the factors necessary 
~f_o_._ ____ ._t_o~havel !pressures comparabl~ with garoline," and he "proposed that the best 
for spark ignition engine fuel ha volumes of no more than 40%, as these .__ ______ __. 
provide the optimal conditions of volatility, water tolerance, and kinematic viscosity to safely power 
spark ignition engines." While she summarized the research and indicated the Petitioner's proposa~ 
I _ I did not explain how this work has affected the industry or otherwise represents a record 
of success or progress rendering the Petitioner well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
The record also includes exam les of various artial articles which cited to the Petitioner's co-authored 
' Environmental Pro ress & Sustainable Ener 
For instance in the article entitled 
.__ ___ ____,....--------,.---------' (Applied Energy), the authors identified the Petitioner's 
research on~-----~ extraction of biocrude oil by comparing biocrude oil yield and lipid 
This aiiicle, however, does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from the 81 
r r f r n in h i 1 imil r1 in h i 1 n i 1 
-------i..----r----1----....1 (PLOS ONE), the authors indicated the Petitioner's study of 
.__ ___ ~ under~---~conditions withl O ldeprivation. This article, however, does not 
differentiate the Petitioner's paper from the 116 other papers referenced in the article. 
Regarding the Petitioner's overall citation record, as indicated above, several of his reference papers 
commented on his citation numbers. For example, "[the Petitioner] has received, according to Go~ 
Scholar, 3 5 citations, which manifests the importance of his research in the scientific community''L_j 
I I, "[the Petitioner's] impressive citation statistics do not come as a surprise given his much-
appreciated publications" and "[h]e has accumulated over thi1iy references from his peers" .... I _ ___. I ~' and "[the Petitioner's] articles detailing these studies have been recognized by his 
peers and cited in other published papers over 35 times at present" and "[e]ach of these citations is an 
indication of the observed influence [the Petitioner] has had upon his peers".....,_ _____ ~ 
I I. As it relates to the citation of the Petitioner's work, the record includes information from 
Google Scholar indicating that his highest cited article published in Environmental Progress & 
Sustainable Energy garnered 31 citations with his remaining five articles receiving two or less, 
5 Although we discuss representative sample articles here, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
respectively. The Petitioner does not specify how many citations for each of these individual articles 
were self-citations by him or his coauthors. 6 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided data from Clarivate Analytics regarding baseline citation rates 
and percentiles by year of publication for the engineering research field. The Petitioner claims that 
his Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy paper ranked among "the top 10% most-cited 
aiiicles published in Engineering in 2013" based on the number of citations it has received (31) since 
that time. The Petitioner did not indicate whether he factored in any self-citations in determining these 
percentile rankings. In addition, the Clarivate Analytics citation data is from February 11, 2019, and 
therefore does not capture citations that occurred after early 2019, while the Petitioner's Google 
Scholar citation report is dated May 6, 2019. 7 Because the Clarivate Analytics data is not 
contemporaneous with the Petitioner's Google Scholar data, he has not shown thatthe 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." 
Additionally, the Petitioner presented an article in Scientometrics written by Lutz Bornmann and 
Werner Marx, entitled "How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences 
meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations." This article presents 
recommendations for "how to evaluate individual researchers in the natural and life sciences" for 
purposes of funding and promotion or hiring decisions. The authors state that "publications which are 
among the 10% most cited publications in their subject area are as a rule called highly cited or 
excellent" and that"the top 10% based excellence indicator" should be given "the highest weight when 
comparing the scientific performance of single researchers." While the authors offer proposed 
methods for bibliometric analysis of research performance, the record does not indicate that their 
methods have been accepted and implemented by the academic community. Moreover, with regard 
to citation information from Google Scholar, the authors advise against "using Google Scholar (GS) 
as a basis for bibliometric analysis. Several studies have pointed out that GS has numerous 
deficiencies for research evaluation." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner presented a line chart (2013-2019) 
that he claims were derived from "Microsoft Academic." While he contends that this chart compares 
his citation and publication counts to those of other researchers in the field, the Petitioner did not 
indicate whether he factored in any self-citations in compiling his percentile rankings from Microsoft 
Academic. Moreover, the date of collection of the percentile rankings post-dates the filing of the 
petition, and therefore the Petitioner has not shown that the citation and publication counts used in 1he 
MicrosoftAcademic percentile calculation occurred in papers published prior to or at the time of initial 
filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). Regardless, 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. 
6 The Petitioner only provided partial copies of his articles withoutthe reference pages. 
7 A web page accompanying the Clarivate Analytics information states that its citation "data is updated six times a year' 
(every two months). 
5 
The record also includes information about Fuel and Destination and Water Treatment in which the 
Petitioner has published his work. That a publication bears a high journal ranking or impact factor is 
reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, show the influence of any 
particular author or otherwise demonstrate how an individual's research represents a record of success 
in the field. 
Further, as it relates to the Petitioner's education, while his doctoral degree froml.__ ____ ___. 
University 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 Petitioner also submitted "Acknowledgements" sections of his published articles noting that the 
work was supported by various entities, such as U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. National Science 
Foundation, and the Bureau of Reclamation. 8 In addition, several of the reference letters claimed that 
the Petitioner's research "resulted in the reception of considerable grants from federal organizations" 
.__ _________ __., and" the Petitioner's] work ... was supported by numerous agencies 
within the U.S. government".__ ______ __, The record, however, does not include copies of the 
research grants. 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 Janyl 
of the grants." Id. at 893, n.11. Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather tha 
'----~~ was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for the research projects. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted and published research while at~ 
I State University andl I University, 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 ofknowledge 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 work has served as an impetus for progress in the or that it has generated substantial 
positive discourse in the industry. Nor does the evidence otherwise show that his work constitutes a 
record of success or progress in advancing research relating to chemical engineering. 
R On appeal, the Petitioner provides anotherletter frmtj I and a letter from the U.S. Department ofEnergy, post­
dating the Director's decision. However, we will not consider this evidence fort he firsttime on appeal as it was not presented 
before the Director. SeeMatterofSoriano, I 9I&NDec. 764, 766(BIA 1988) (providingthatif"thepetitionerwas put on 
notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opp01iunity to provide it for the record before the denial, we will 
not consider evidence submitted on appeal foranypurpose" and that "we will adjudicate the appeal based on thereconl of 
proceedings"before the Chief); see alsoMatterofObaigbena, 19 I&NDec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
6 
As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his 
proposed 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 seive 
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