dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 13, 2025 InRe : 36845174 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a graduate research assistant, 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 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 she 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 a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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 ofDhanasar, 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) (joining the Third, Ninth , Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding 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 found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 The sole 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 filin , the Petitioner was workin as a graduate research assistant in the Department of 
--------------------~ 3 She indicated that she is pursuing her Ph.D. at 
and that her research involves "investigations into minimizing construction 
industry hazards in different phases of construction, safety analysis, and inspection. The focus of my 
safety management research, in particular, was on wearable safety promotion devices and in-pipe robot 
inspections." The Petitioner further asserted that her "research has applications for enhancing safety 
analyses through addressing communication and decision-making obstacles in sustainable design, 
conflict detection, and workspace planning contexts." 
Regarding her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner indicated that she plans "to develop dynamic 4D 
modeling strategies and utilize artificial intelligence techniques in order to optimize construction 
workspace planning and enhance the productivity, safety, and efficiency of labor crews." She also 
stated: 
Upon the completion of my degree, I intend to pursue a position as a postdoctoral 
researcher at ________ My planned research topics include an 
investigation on minimizing possible hazards in different phases of construction by 
focusing on workspace planning. I plan to focus on developing a novel approach that 
utilizes artificial intelligence algorithm techniques to optimize construction workspace 
planning and minimize potential hazards in complex job sites characterized by 
congestion. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner further indicated: 
My research focuses on developing innovative methods to quantify and mitigate time­
space conflicts in construction projects. I am committed to improving our 
understanding of dynamic conflict detection and quantification, exploring various 
conflict avoidance strategies, and investigating the sensitivity levels of different 
activities and their impacts on project durations. Specific goals include refining the 
2The Petitioner received a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering (2015) from 
in Iran. 
3 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for her to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we will consider information about her research position to illustrate the capacity in which 
she intends to work in order to determine whether her proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
2 
equations for quantifying time-space conflicts, exploring alternative conflict 
management strategies, and integrating artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning 
to enhance conflict quantification and resource allocation. 
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a 
national interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit 
may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, 
culture, health, or education. Id. We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner's 
endeavor has substantial merit. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Id. We withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish 
the national importance of her proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong. As evidence that her 
proposed research has substantial merit and national importance, the Petitioner presented information 
about artificial intelligence in construction, digital construction technologies, the deteriorating state of 
U.S. infrastructure, critical and emerging technologies, and the construction industry. She also 
provided letters of support discussing how her undertaking contributes to advancements in the 
development of modeling techniques for improving construction workflow planning. Additionally, 
the Petitioner submitted documentation indicating that the benefit of her proposed research offers 
broader implications for the field of construction engineering, 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 her proposed research, she has established that she 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 individual. Id. at 890. To 
determine whether they 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. We withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner established she meets 
Dhanasar 's second prong. 
The record includes documentation of the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, Master of Science degree, 
published and presented work, and peer review service. The Petitioner also offered evidence of articles 
that cited to her published work, citation metrics, and letters of support discussing her graduate 
researchatl I 
In letters supporting the petition, the Petitioner's references discussed her graduate research projects 
involving construction workspace planning, building information modeling, and in-pipe robots. For 
3 
example, Dr. B-Y-R-, formerly an associate professor in the Department ofl Iat 
_______ and presently a professor atl Iindicated that 
the Petitioner has "introduced a novel equation to quantify the impacts of time-space conflicts to 
optimize construction workspace planning and reduce hazards in job sites affected by congestion, as 
well as to reduce conflicts that arrive from the complex nature of construction projects, which often 
involve multiple subcontractors." He further asserted that the Petitioner's work "provided vital 
insights into existing conflict avoidance approaches and investigated the potential of allowing 
controlled disputes within projects." Dr. B-Y-R- also stated that the Petitioner "developed a new 
building information modeling framework for calculating how building envelope materials and design 
impact the energy efficiency of buildings." While the Petitioner's equation to quantify the impacts of 
time-space conflicts and her building information modeling framework have contributed knowledge 
to an active field of research, she has not demonstrated the extent to which her findings are being 
utilized in the construction industry. Nor has she otherwise demonstrated that her findings constitute 
a record of success or progress rendering her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. 
Regarding the Petitioner's work involving in-pipe monitoring robots, Dr. Z-S-, a professor at 
___________ stated that the Petitioner "conducted a comprehensive review of in-
pipe robotic devices used for monitoring and inspecting pipelines." Dr. Z-S- further noted that "[t]his 
review led her to propose a systematic process for researchers working on in-pipe robots, providing a 
deep understanding of methods, sensors, and implementation techniques for different tasks." 
Likewise, Dr. K-A-, a professor at ____________ indicated that the Petitioner 
"created a systematic classification system for these devices, taking into account their shape movement 
profiles, the techniques used to fulfill their performance parameters, and their array of sensor systems," 
but the Petitioner has not shown that her work shows success or progress at a level that renders her 
well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. 
In addition, Dr. P-T-, an associate professor at __________ indicated that the 
Petitioner's research identified "key factors that impact the use of tactile-based wearable devices for 
construction workers who are on foot." Dr. P-T- further stated that the Petitioner "developed a new 
communication network for determining how to create alerts for each mode of communication" and 
"also developed a proof-of-concept tactile-mode wearable device for tracking worker location with 
respect to onsite hazards, such as uncovered holes." While Dr. P-T- asserted that the Petitioner's work 
is "valuable for understanding the human factors that need to be considered when developing and 
implanting wearable device programs," she has not shown that her level of research success is 
sufficient to demonstrate she is well positioned. 
The Petitioner contends that her coauthored research articles "have been published in the top journals" 
in her field such as IEEE Access and Sensors.4 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 their field. 
As it relates to the citation of the Petitioner's work, the Petitioner provided her Google Scholar profile 
from November 2023. The November 2023 information from Google Scholar indicates that her three 
4 The record includes Google Scholar rankings for these journals. 
4 
I
highest cited articles, entitled 
(2021), ------------------ -
2022, and 
(2022) each received 11, 9, and 1 citation(s), respectively. 5 The 
Petitioner does not specify how many citations for each of these individual articles were self-citations 
by her or her coauthors. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided a July 2024 Google 
Scholar profile listing additional citations her published articles received that post-date the December 
4, 2023 filing of the Form 1-140 petition. 6 These later citations provided in response to the RFE do 
not establish her eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
The Petitioner also provided January 2023 data from Clarivate Analytics (InCites Essential Science 
Indicators) regarding baseline citation rates and percentiles by year of publication for the 
"Engineerin " research field. The Petitioner contends that her 2022 a er entitled 
ranked among "the top 10% of the most 
cited articles published in Engineering in 2022." The Petitioner did not indicate whether she factored 
in any self-citations in determining this percentile ranking. In addition, because the Petitioner has not 
shown that the January 2023 Clarivate Analytics data is contemporaneous with the Petitioner's 
November 2023 Google Scholar information, she has demonstrated that the former provides a proper 
analysis of her citation record. 7 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." Regardless, the Petitioner has not established that her co-authorship of 
this paper which had received nine citations at the time of filing the petition automatically 
demonstrates her record of research success or otherwise renders her well positioned. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner relies on citation information concerning the larger field of engineering 
and compares her citation frequency in construction engineering to that of the larger field. While we 
acknowledge that construction engineering is part of the larger field of engineering, the Petitioner has 
not submitted sufficient evidence confirming that information extrapolated from the larger field 
applies equally to each subfield within engineering, including construction engineering. Thus, the 
Petitioner's comparison of her citation number in her field with information regarding citation in the 
larger field of engineering does not sufficiently establish the level of her success or impact in the field 
of construction engineering. 
Additionally, the Petitioner's RFE response included OpenAlex author metrics which she claims 
compares her citation impact to that of other construction engineering researchers. This information 
lists the "Years Covered" as "2021-2024" and therefore it does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility 
at the time of filing. 8 See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ), ( 12). Regardless, citation frequency which is 
5 None of the Petitioner's remaining three coauthored articles had received citations as of November 2023. 
6 For example, the citation counts for her three highest cited articles as ofJuly 2024 had increased to 22, 11, and 2 citations. 
None of the Petitioner's remaining three articles were cited to more than once as ofJuly 2024. 
7 A January 2, 2023 webpage accompanying the Clarivate Analytics information states that its citation "data is updated six 
times a year" (every two months). 
8 For instance, the OpenAlex author metrics include citation data from 2024 that post-date the filing of the petition. 
5 
quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis. 
In other words, a high citation number might show that others in the field have noticed the Petitioner's 
work, but it does not confirm that her work has impacted or advanced the field of in such a way that 
renders her well positioned. Moreover, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations 
received by her published articles at the time of filing reflects a level of interest in her work from 
relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar 's second prong. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's education, while her Master of Science degree renders her eligible for 
the underlying EB-2 visa classification, she has not shown that her academic accomplishments by 
themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. 9 
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 her proposed endeavor and education is merely one factor among many that 
may contribute to such a finding. 
Regarding the Petitioner's plan for future activities, she stated in response to the RFE that she intended 
to "expand the application of AI-4D BIM applications to address more complex construction 
challenges." She further indicated: "Upon completion of my degree, I intend to pursue a position as 
a postdoctoral researcher at where I will continue to conduct research in 
pursuit of my proposed endeavor." With respect to the Petitioner obtaining a future postdoctoral 
position atl Ior at another U.S. university or research institution, she did not 
provide documentation from any such organization showing their communications or identifying the 
specific research projects she intends to pursue on the organization's behalf. Without sufficient 
evidence demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake her proposed research in the 
United States after graduation from her current Ph.D. program, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that her plan for future activities renders her well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 10 
Regarding her peer review activity, the Petitioner provided letters of support indicating that she 
reviewed papers for Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, IEEE Access, Journal 
of Green Building, and Journal ofElectronics. The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that her 
occasional participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in her field 
or that it is otherwise an indication that she is well positioned to advance her research endeavor. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during 
her graduate studies, but she has not shown that this work renders her well positioned to advance her 
9 "USCIS considers an advanced degree, particularly a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), in a STEM field tied to the proposed 
endeavor and related to work furthering a critical and emerging technology or other STEM area important to U.S. 
competitive or national security, an especially positive factor to be considered along with other evidence for purposes of 
the assessment under the second prong." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, F.5(0)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. A degree in and of itself, however, is not the only factor we consider in determining ifa person is well positioned 
to advance their proposed endeavor. Id. 
1 °For example, the Petitioner did not offer evidence showing that she has received funding for her research proposals or 
future 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. 
Regarding her work at the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than her professor) was 
mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects. 
6 
proposed research. 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 their 
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 her graduate work constitutes 
a record of success or progress in construction engineering research rendering her well positioned to 
advance her proposed endeavor. As the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she is well positioned to 
advance her proposed research endeavor, she has not established that she satisfies the second prong of 
the Dhanasar framework. 
C. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial to the United States 
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. Id. at 890-91. 
In performing this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the 
individual's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure 
a job offer or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers 
are available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national 
interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. 
Id. In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish 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. 
Id. at 891. 
In denying the petition, the Director's decision stated: 
The Petitioner failed to submit evidence that her knowledge or skills are not easily 
articulated in labor certification, and she has not demonstrated, as claimed, that she 
presents benefits to the United States through her proposed endeavor that outweigh 
those inherent in the labor certification process. In addition, the Petitioner has not 
shown that she offers contributions of such value that, overall, they would benefit the 
nation even if other qualified U.S. workers were available. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that her graduate research position "is inherently temporary and will 
terminate upon her completion" of the Ph.D. program atl Iand therefore "it was 
impractical for [her] to obtain a labor certification." She further indicates that "it is evident that the 
limited duration of [her] research position at the time of filing could not have constituted permanent 
employment and thus, could not have satisfied labor certification requirements." We acknowledge the 
impracticality of obtaining a labor certification for a graduate student. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts that "her proposed endeavor involves research implicating several 
critical and emerging technology fields, including Advanced Computing, AI, and Human-Machine 
Interfaces that are of the utmost national urgency," but she has not demonstrated that her specific 
research contributions have affected these fields at a level sufficient to warrant foregoing the labor 
certification process. She also claims that "the evidence of record establishes that the benefits 
7 
stemming from her research are so significant that it would still be beneficial to waive the labor 
certification even if other qualified domestic workers were available." The Petitioner points to her 
master's degree, research experience, peer review service, and personal statement. For Dhanasar 's 
third prong, we assess whether the proposed endeavor and the individual being well positioned to 
advance that endeavor, taken together, provide benefits to the nation such that a waiver of the labor 
certification requirement outweighs the benefits that ordinarily flow from that requirement. Here, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that her construction engineering and workspace planning 
contributions supersede the benefit from the labor certification. 
While the record includes information about artificial intelligence in construction, digital construction 
technologies, the deteriorating state of U.S. infrastructure, critical and emerging technologies, and the 
construction industry, this information is insufficient to show that the national interest is better served 
by a waiver of the job offer and thus the labor certification requirement. The labor certification process 
is intended to ensure that the admission of foreign workers will not adversely affect the job 
opportunities, wages, and working conditions of U.S. workers. We acknowledge the inapplicability 
of labor certification; the Petitioner's master's degree in a STEM field ( civil engineering); her graduate 
research experience; and her findings relating to construction workspace planning, building 
information modeling, and in-pipe robots. The evidence in the aggregate, however, is not sufficient 
to show that a national interest waiver outweighs the benefits inherent to the labor certification process. 
The Petitioner has not shown that she offers contributions of such value that, on balance, it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements even 
assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite second and third prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 
we conclude that she has not established she 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