dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Climate Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 26, 2024 In Re: 32497651 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a climate scientist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an advanced degree professional, 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 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 a/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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent 
regulations define the term "national interest," 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 anational 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• 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. EB-2 CLASSIFICATION 
The Director determined that the Petitioner is amember of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign 
equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent 
of amaster's degree. Id. 
The Petitioner received his education in Nigeria. According to the Petitioner's credential evaluation 
of his Nigerian degrees, he obtained a two-year degree majoring in biochemistry in 2007, a five-year 
degree majoring in meteorology in 2011 equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, a two-year degree in 
meteorology in 2015 equivalent to aU.S. master's degree, and athree-year degree in meteorology and 
climate science in 2019 equivalent to a U.S. doctorate degree. In support of the evaluation, the 
Petitioner submitted only a copy of his doctorate diploma and a letter from the institution that issued 
the diploma attesting to his attendance, the degree awarded, the date of the degree, and identifying his 
thesis title as 
_____ The Petitioner has not submitted an official academic record demonstrating he 
has an advanced degree, as required under 8 CFR § 204.5(k)(3)(i). The Petitioner's submissions do 
not amount to an official academic record evidencing, for example, the names of the institutions that 
issued his degrees, the years he attended his degree programs, whether he attended full time studies. 
As a result, we withdraw the Director's dete1mination that the Petitioner established he is an advanced 
degree professional. 
The Petitioner does not assert that he is an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or 
business in the record below or on appeal. We therefore consider the issue to be waived. See, e.g., 
Matter of O-R-E-, 428 l&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter of R-A-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 657, 
658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). Because the Petitioner has not established he is a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. 
Ill. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
In support of his national interest waiver petition, the Petitioner submitted documents including his 
resume, two recommendation letters, abstracts from his publications, notable publications that cited to 
his research, articles discussing climate change, his citation record, and his work as a peer-reviewer. 
After considering the evidence, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the three 
Dhanasar prongs to merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Based on our de nova review, we conclude the Petitioner established his proposed endeavor has 
2 
substantial merit and national importance, satisfying Dhanasar's prong one, but did not demonstrate 
he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor to establish Dhanasar's second prong. 
In the initial filing, the Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor is to research, develop, and evaluate 
state-of-the-art global and regional climate models for simulating, past, present, and future climate 
and weather characteristics to inform decision-making processes for urban planning and climate 
change mitigation and adaptation efforts. According to his statement, his planned research topics 
include investigation of global monsoon variability and aerosol-cloud-radiation interactions under 
different greenhouse gas emissions and shared socioeconomic scenarios. In response to the Director's 
request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted asecond proposed endeavor statement clarifying that he 
will pursue the scientific understanding and actionable solutions in the realm of climate modeling with 
a particular emphasis on its impact within the United States. According to the Petitioner's second 
statement, he plans on contributing to the scientific community's understanding of North American 
climate by "leveraging the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model, a regional climate model 
developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research."2 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
The Director did not determine whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. Our 
precedent decision in Dhanasar noted that an endeavor's substantial merit may be established without 
evidence of economic impact, providing the examples of endeavors relating to research, pure science, 
and the furtherance of human knowledge. Id. Here, the Petitioner proposes to research, develop, and 
evaluate global and regional climate models to mitigate the impact of climate change and assist in 
adaptive efforts. Because the Petitioner aims to advance scientific knowledge, he has established the 
substantial merit of his proposed endeavor. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was not of national importance. The 
Director repeated the Petitioner's description of his proposed endeavor and found it does not stand to 
2 The Petitioner's second endeavor statement also claimed that he would work on allocating resources to "support low­
carbon, net-zero, climate-resilient sustainable development in the United States." However, the Petitioner did not initially 
indicate any intention to work on allocating resources in his initial filing, nor does he explain what resources he would 
allocate or how allocating resources is related to his initial proposed endeavor of researching, evaluating, and developing 
improved climate models that would impact the United States. We consider this amendment to his endeavor a material 
change to the petition. The Petitioner must establish all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied 
from the time of filing and continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 l&N Dec. 
45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Further, a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in 
an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. Matter of lzummi, 22 l&N Dec. 169, 175 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1988). Accordingly, we will only address on appeal the Petitioner's initial proposed endeavor and the additional 
details regarding his proposed endeavor included in his second endeavor statement. 
3 
impact the broader field, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or enhance societal welfare 
or cultural or artistic enrichment as contemplated by Dhanasar. We disagree. 
In the underlying record, the Petitioner submitted recommendation letters from two meteorologists 
holding senior positions in academia, describing the importance of having models more accurately 
and efficiently predict the weather's complex causes and effects and other climate factors in mitigating 
climate change. In one of the letters, the author discussed how two other climate research teams 
published articles in 2020 and 2021 emphasizing the benefits of improved global circulation models 
for predicting climate and weather events and cited to the Petitioner's research in support of more 
accurate modeling. The Petitioner also included articles describing the effects of climate change but, 
more relevantly, he highlighted two that mentioned the use of climate models. One article noted how 
climate mapping can build resilience in communities by helping them plan for climate risks and 
another article relied on a climate model's prediction of increased rainfall in parts of the United States 
to propose reforms in crop insurance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor involves tackling climate change through 
developing and improving Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics (STEM) technologies 
as they relate to climate science, which is of immense value to the United States. The Petitioner cites 
to the USCIS policy manual and submits a White House Memorandum on Research and Development 
Priorities for fiscal year 2024 documenting the government's interest in prioritizing research and 
development investments that advance the understanding of climate change. We agree that 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 climate models aligns with the White 
House's priority of improving technology relevant to climate change and would have national 
implications within the field of climate science. Looking at the evidence in its totality, the Petitioner 
has sufficiently demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed endeavor stands 
to impact the broader field of climate science and is of national importance. 
The Petitioner has established the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor, 
and meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. We therefore withdraw the Director's 
determination to the contrary on this issue. 
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. 
According to the Director, the Petitioner has not shown how his research findings have influenced the 
field or industry beyond adding to the general pool of knowledge and has not otherwise shown that 
his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned 
4 
to advance his proposed endeavor. On appeal the Petitioner claims the Director did not properly 
evaluate the evidence in the record. 
Upon de nova review, we conclude the Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor of researching, developing, and evaluating climate models to inform 
decision-making processes for urban planning and climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts 
with a particular emphasis on its impact within the United States. As discussed below, the Petitioner 
has not established that he has developed climate models in West Africa to establish arecord of success 
in related or similar efforts, that his specific knowledge and research of West African weather 
conditions translates to an ability to advance his proposed endeavor of developing and evaluating 
weather models affecting the United States, or that he has gained the interest of potential customers, 
users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals in his proposed endeavor. Further, the 
Petitioner's evidence does not show that there are potential customers, users, investors, or other 
relevant government or private entities or individuals in the United States who would be interested in 
his proposed endeavor. 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts that his education, research, and work history clearly evidence his 
skills, knowledge, and record of success, and thereby establishes that he is well positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor. We look to a variety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is well 
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and education, skills, knowledge, and record of success 
are factors among many that may contribute to such a finding. Id. at 890. We reviewed the Petitioner's 
education above and as noted, the Petitioner has not corroborated his academic evaluation with his 
academic record. However, even if he had, he has not shown that his academic accomplishments, 
research, and professional experience focused on or otherwise sufficiently prepared him for his 
proposed endeavor, which includes developing global and regional climate models impacting the 
United States. We acknowledge that the Petitioner's research and related publications have 
contributed to scientific understanding of climate in West Africa.3 However, while research adds 
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 their proposed endeavor. Here, the Petitioner's thesis research 
involved forecasting models simulating West African monsoons, and as part of his research, he 
evaluated climate models affecting West Africa and he is currently working on developing a model 
for that region. The record of his past and current research does not reflect that the Petitioner has 
already developed weather models. With respect to the Petitioner's work history, the record evidences 
that he is currently a climate change adaptation specialist for the in the 
Ivory Coast, and has been a lecturer at a university, a consultant for a meteorological organization, a 
scientist, and a climate advisor. His duties in his positions as reflected in the record similarly do not 
evidence the Petitioner's development of climate models. As a result, the record does not demonstrate 
that the Petitioner actually developed climate models as part of his education, thesis work, research, 
3 The Petitioner provided abstracts of his published articles, which include eleven peer-reviewed journal articles, six of 
which list the Petitioner as lead author, and two separate book chapters first authored by him, all discussing climate research 
with respect to West Africa. He included his Google Scholar profile indicating his citation rate being over 300. He also 
submitted a webpage printout from featuring a story of the 
Petitioner and discussing his research on the development of aWest African earth system model. 
5 
or employment to demonstrate a record of success or that he has made progress towards achieving or
is otherwise well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor in the United States. 
 
The Petitioner further asserts on appeal that his research has been cited by scientists all over the world, 
and he singled out several articles of importance and provided their abstracts in the record below. Of 
the articles that did not focus on climate research in West Africa, only one discussed weather in the 
U.S. Midwest. However, the research team that cited to the Petitioner's research only noted that he 
had demonstrated the reliability of a certain weather scheme in West Africa. Another article focused 
on weather in Iran and cited to the Petitioner's research to evidence weather projection was used in 
his study, another discussed weather in China, and cited to the Petitioner's work to say the Petitioner 
studied climate extremes in Africa, another discussed the Petitioner's work as it relates to East Africa, 
and another analyzing weather in the tropics acknowledged deficiencies in local modeling found by 
the Petitioner's research. While his citation history evidences that the Petitioner's research has added 
information to climate science in some way, it does not sufficiently establish that his research has 
prepared him to advance his proposed endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also asserts the Director did not fully assess the letters he submitted from 
two qualified experts in the field, who discussed his research and highlighted his accomplishments in 
climate research. One letter, dated February 2023, is authored by a former colleague and project 
scientist at the ______________ in England. The letter is highly 
complementary, serves to highlight the Petitioner's achievements with respect to evaluating models 
specific to West Africa, and asserts the Petitioner's work has made headway in areas of climate science 
that would affect national efforts to mitigate climate change. The second recommendation letter is 
authored by an assistant professor in theI Iat the I I 
______ in Morocco. The author, whose letter is also dated February 2023, stated he is 
familiar with the Petitioner's work and has cited to the Petitioner's research in his own research and 
evaluation of Ugandan precipitation models. The author of the letter explained that the Petitioner's 
notable project investigated the effects of aerosol on the monsoon system in West Africa. However, 
the letters do not provide examples or an explanation of how the Petitioner's research has facilitated 
the development of, or that he has developed, climate models that would have impact here in the 
United States. As a result, the recommendation letters do not sufficiently support that the Petitioner 
is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
Similarly, the Petitioner also points to his selection as a peer-reviewer for publications as evidence of 
his reputation in the scientific community as a renowned leading expert in climate science and interest 
in his work. While he provided emails evidencing his feedback on the work of another researcher and 
gratitude expressed by others in the field for his response and comments, he did not provide evidence 
of reviewing publications relevant to his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner has not detailed how or 
why he was selected as reviewer or that he is recognized for expertise relevant to his proposed 
endeavor. Without more, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his review of articles for publication 
reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second 
prong. 
Further, in our determination that Dhanasar was well positioned under the second prong, we also 
weighed "the sustained interest of and funding from government entities" for his proposed endeavor. 
Id. at 893. We noted that, in making such a determination, we consider factors including interest of 
6 
potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals in the endeavor. Id. at 
890. In his proposed endeavor statement, the Petitioner stated he envisions working as a project 
scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado and remains open to the 
prospect of roles in academic institutions. However, the Petitioner did not provide evidence that the 
National Center for Atmospheric Research, or any other academic institution, has expressed interest 
in employing him. Rather, the Petitioner asserts his evidence, such as his research, funding for some 
of his research, his citation record, and his letters of support, sufficiently documents the interest of 
relevant parties in his research, particularly his colleagues who have utilized and benefitted from his 
work. However, while this evidence establishes that the Petitioner is a very capable and respected 
climate scientist and researcher who has conducted, and published climate research with respect to 
West Africa that is well cited, it does not establish that he has obtained or generated interest in his 
proposed endeavor from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant government or private 
entities or individuals. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts he has provided a model plan for his proposed endeavor, which was not 
discussed in the Director's second prong analysis. In describing his proposed model or plan for future 
activities, the Petitioner's initial endeavor statement said his planned research topics include 
investigation of global monsoon variabi I ity and aerosol-cloud-radiation interactions under different 
greenhouse gas emissions and shared socioeconomic scenarios. In addition, according to the 
Petitioner's second endeavor statement, he plans on contributing to the scientific community's 
understanding of North American climate by "leveraging" the WRF model. The Petitioner, however, 
did not explain how his planned research or "leveraging" of the WRF model relates to his proposed 
endeavor, whether any potential government or private sector employers expressed interest in the 
planned research and investigation, or what steps were taken to advance his proposed plans. 
We have examined the factors set forth in Dhanasar, including the Petitioner's education, skills, 
knowledge; progress towards achieving the goals of the proposed endeavor; amodel or plan for future 
activities; interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. 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). 
7 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established his eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification and has not 
shown that he is eligible for and otherwise merits a national interest waiver of that classification's job 
offer requirement. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8