dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computational Mathematics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT.21,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computational mathematics researcher, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national 
interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). After a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USC IS) 
may, as matter of discretion, 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, finding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, but that he had not established that a waiver of a job offer, and thus of a 
labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Petitioner appealed the matter to us, and 
we dismissed the appeal. 1 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On motion, the 
Petitioner submits a brief stating that he is providing new facts to establish eligibility and that our 
previous decision was incorrect based on the previous record. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
1 
See Matter ofS-S-, ID# 11990 I (AAO May II, 20 17). In adjudicating the appeal, we noted that in December 2016, we 
vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter ()[New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. 
Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT) and set forth a new framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884. Accordingly, in January 2017, we issued a request for evidence (RFE) asking the 
Petitioner to provide evidence satisfYing the three-part framework set forth in Dhanasar. In response, the Petitioner 
submitted a brief and additional documentation, asserting that he is eligible for a national interest waiver under the 
Dhanasar framework. 
Matter of S-S-
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts, and a motion to reconsider is 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a motion to reopen are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
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. See section 
203(b )(2) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national 
interest," we recently set forth a new framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
petitions. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884? Dhanasar states that after EB-2 eligibility has been 
established, USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver when the below 
prongs are met. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of 
areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors 
including, but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in 
related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the 
proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities 
or individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In 
performing this analysis, users may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the 
foreign national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the 
foreign national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor cetiification; 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 sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, 
2 
In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of' New York State Department of' 
Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm 'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 
.
Matter of S-S-
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 certitication. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
In denying the Petitioner's appeal, we found that he had met the first prong of the framework set 
forth in Dhanasar based on his proposed research, 4 but that he had not satisfied the second or third 
prong. The Petitioner tiled the current combined motion to reopen and reconsider contending that 
our previous decision was erroneous. He claims on motion that he provided sufficient evidence 
establishing that he has met the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework, and that the 
AAO biised its decision on an incorrect application of law or policy. 
A. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
Under the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, a petitioner must establish that he or she is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. We previously determined that the Petitioner had not 
done so. The first issue before us on motion is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated that he 
meets the requirements set forth under this prong through new evidence and information, or that our 
previous determination was incorrect based on the previous record before us. 1 
In our prior decision, we found the Petitioner had not demonstrated a record of success or progress in 
his field, or a degree of interest in his work from relevant parties, that rises to the level of rendering him 
well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor of developing models to capture and 
analyze failure mechanisms of safety and economically critical infrastructure systems. The record 
included evidence of the Petitioner's graduate research along with information describing a project in 
which he developed software tools that were used by cancer researchers in a study of 
sequence alignment. We concluded that the Petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence that his 
graduate research has been frequently cited by independent scholars or otherwise served as an 
impetus for progress in the field, or that it generated substantial positive discourse in the broader 
academic community. We noted that, while the record includes evidence that the Petitioner's work 
has been viewed online 113 times, there is little evidence that his findings have been implemented, 
utilized, or applauded by those viewing it. On appeal, he claimed that his field was too narrow to be 
frequently cited; however, he did not offer comparative statistics explaining how often other 
engineering researchers are cited to support this assertion. Moreover, we noted that the record does 
not indicate that his findings have been employed by government or private sector entities, or that 
his work has affected specific infrastructure development or failure mechanism projects. 
3 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 
We noted that the Petitioner provided several offer letters from public and private sector employers, but that he did not 
fully explain whether he intends to accept any of the researcher positions described, what his proposed duties may be, or 
whether his proposed endeavor would change if he moved from academia to the private sector. Nonetheless, to the 
extent that the Petitioner proposed to conduct engineering research related to transportation and infrastructure systems, 
we found the evidence sufficient to demonstrate that such research is of national importance. 
3 
.
Matter of S-S-
In his motion to reopen, the Petitioner indicates that his teaching experience was not considered in 
determining his eligibility under the second prong. He states that he served as a teaching assistant at 
and and that this experience renders him well 
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. While the Petitioner claims that he has "tremendous 
teaching potential," and we recognize that often academic positions require both teaching and 
research responsibilities, the Petitioner must establish that he is well positioned to advance the 
endeavor found to be nationally important. As we stated in our prior decision, the Petitioner's 
proposed teaching activities do not meet the "national importance" element of the Dhanasar 
framework's first prong because they would not impact the field more broadly than his particular 
students or school. 5 Our finding that the Petitioner meets the requirements of prong one is limited to 
his proposed endeavor of advancing research into failure mechanisms within infrastructure 
development. In this case, he has not shown that any new facts provided establish he is well 
positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor. Accordingly, the motion to reopen does not 
demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility under this prong. 
In his motion to reconsider, the Petitioner asserts that our conclusion was based "on factors not 
considered in deciding the second prong." He contends that he is eligible under the second prong 
because the evidence demonstrates the requisite level of interest from potential customers, users, 
investors or other relevant entities or individuals. He points to a number of interview appointments 
from potential employers interested in "leveraging 
and utilizing" his "skills and advanced knowledge 
in linear and nonlinear controls, systems, mathematical modeling, machine learning, optimization, 
numerical methods, and computational mathematics." While we agree that job offers in a field of 
endeavor can, in some instances, be reflective of a record of success and interest from relevant 
parties, here the Petitioner has not shown that his potential employers are interested in specific and 
notable accomplishments he has made. We find no error in our previous determination that the 
record does not show a record of success or interest rising to the level of rendering him well 
positioned to advance his proposed research. 
For purposes of a motion to reconsider, the question is whether our decision was correct based on the 
record that existed at the time of adjudication. Here, arguments the Petitioner offers on motion do 
not establish that our previous findings were based on an incorrect application of the law, regulation, 
or USCIS policy, nor does the motion demonstrate that our latest decision was erroneous based on 
the evidence before us at the time of the decision. 
B. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
As explained above, the third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would 
-be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. Here, the Petitioner contends that it would be impractical for him to obtain a labor 
certification. He does not, however, provide evidence or information to support his claim that our 
5 
Similarly, in Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
4 
Matter of S-S-
previous determination was erroneous, nor did he identifY new facts establishing his eligibility under 
this prong. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitiqner has not offered new facts demonstrating his eligibility for the benefit sought, nor has he 
established that our previous decision was incorrect. As the Petitioner has not met the requisite three 
prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that he has not established eligibility 
for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofS-S-, ID# 702214 (AAO Sept. 21, 2017) 
5