dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8418892 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 21, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a computer engineering 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) . 
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 he 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 submits additional documentation and a brief asserting 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 ofjob 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. 
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 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, 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 offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
1 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 See also Poursina v. USC1S. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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, 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 found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 4 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. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a senior research assistant in the I I 
of Electrical and Computer Engineering atl luniversity~n July 2019, he 
began serving as an assistant professor in the Department of Technology atL_____JUniversity. 5 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicated that he intends to continue his research involving "computer science and 
engineering, and, specifically, in the area ofl I memory, I I systems, and I I 
characterization and performance evaluation of next generation processors and high-performance 
computing." The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
has substantial merit and national importance. For example, he presented a strategic plan from the 
U.S. National Strategic Computing Initiative Executive Council discussing our country's objectives 
to sustain and enhance U.S. leadership in high-performance computing. In addition, the Petitioner 
provided documentation indicating that the benefit of his proposed research has broader implications, 
as the results are disseminated to others in the field through engineering journals and conferences. As 
the Petitioner has documented both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed 
computer engineering research, we agree with the Director's determination that he 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 Petitioner. The record includes 
documentation of his curriculum vitae, academic credentials, published articles, conference 
presentations, and peer review activities. He also offered evidence of articles that cited to his published 
work, and letters of support discussing his past research projects. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that his "experience onl I and I I simulator 
andl I," the reputation of the conferences in which he has participated, the stature of the 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Petitioner received a Ph.D. in Engineering from I !University in December 2016. 
5 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we will consider information about his positions to illustrate the capacity in which he 
intends to work in order to determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
3 
computer engineers who conceived his graduate research topics, the accomplishments of his references 
and coauthors, and the citation history of his work demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor. For the reasons discussed below, the record supports 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 supportin the etition, several references discussed the Petitioner's computer engineering 
research ro · ects at 6 For example,! l a principal member of the technical staff 
at 7, indicated that the Petitioner /perjprmi"d 
1
extensive research on an 
.__ __ _.I memory and proposed hardware software controlled memory. His preliminary 
research on cache shows that for high-performance computing , cache line utilization is 
around 50%, illustrating the inefficiency of current fixed size cache lines for scientific applications." 
I I farther stated that the Petitioner proposed "to generate al I block configurable by 
the programmer or compiler, that will be utilized 100%" and "to generate the blocks with combining 
same type variables! L" but the Petitioner has not shown that this work 
has been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in the field. 
Furthermore,! I professor atl !University, asserted that the Petitioner 
devised "an I I memory architecture.__ ____ ___,,,. ______ that consumes less power 
compared to conventional cache architecture. Additionally, his proposed design is flexible compared 
to conventiona~ lmemlry that y currently used in embedded systems." While I I 
contended that the Petitioner's memory can be used in future mobile devices as well as 
biomedical equipment," he does not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's design has 
generated positive interest among relevant parties, has been utilized by mobile device or biomedical 
equipment manufacturers, or otherwise reflects a record of success in his area of research. 
In addition! I platfoj perlorj"nce architect a~ [ stated that the 
Petitioner "has shown the performance of cache architecture for different I f' and 
that "[t]his performance evaluation would be helpful for application characterization (identify the 
similarity) and writing program codes (identify the critical section)." Likewise,! I I I a senior software Tginel at I I noted that the Petitioner "has 
characterized I b from andl I suites. . . . In this work, he identified the number 
of required hardware execution units for the tests in the aforementioned! I suites. This data 
is incredibly useful for optimizing thel I and the important applications they model."~ 
I I and I I however, do not explain how the Petitioner's! I 
optimization work has affected the industry or otherwise constitutes a record of success in his field. 
As it relates to the citation of the Petitioner's work, he provided information from Google Scholar 
indicating that his four highest cited articles in IEEE 35th International Performance Computing and 
Communications Co11ference (2016), International Conference on Computational Science and 
Computational Intelligence (2016), 5th International Workshop on Performance Modeling, 
Benchmarking and Simulation of High Performance Computer Systems (2014), and International 
6 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
i lwas previously an associate professor atl ~nd served as the Petitioner's primary advisor during his Ph.D. 
research. 
4 
Conference on Informatics, Electronics & Vision (2012) each received 6, 5, 5, and 2 citations, 
respectively. The Petitioner does not, however, offer comparative statistics showing the significance 
of this level of citation within his field. 
With respect to the documentation reflecting that the Petitioner has presented his findings at 
engineering conferences, we note that many professional fields regularly hold meetings and 
conferences to present new work, discuss new findings, and network with other professionals. 
Although presentation of the Petitioner's work demonstrates that he shared his original findings with 
others, he has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his articles reflects a level of 
interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second prong. Moreover, that 
a publication or conference bears a high 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 his field. 
Regarding his peer review activities, the Petitioner provided evidence indicating that he reviewed 
articles for ITC 2017, ScalCom 2017, FIE 2017, and IEEE-GCC 2017. The Petitioner, however, has 
not documented the stature of these conferences or offered other documentation demonstrating that 
his peer review experience rises to the level of rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed 
I !research. Nor does the record show that the Petitioner's occasional participation in the 
widespread peer review process represents a record of success in his field or that it is otherwise an 
indication that he is well positioned to advance his research endeavor. 
The evidence indicates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research while 
working atl lbut 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 of knowledge 
in some way in order to be accepted for publication, presentation, fonding, 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 shown that his published and presented work has served as 
an impetus for progress in the computer engineering field or that it has generated substantial positive 
discourse in the engineering community. Nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that his work 
constitutes a record of success or progress in researching I I memory and I I 
optimization. As the record is insufficient to show that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his 
proposed research endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
C. 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 claims that he is eligible for a waiver due to his research experience 
and accomplishments, the importance of his field, and the impracticality of labor certification. 
However, as the Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor as required by the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national 
5 
interest waiver and further discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no 
meaningful purpose. 
III. 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. 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. 
6