dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 10, 2024 In Re: 34833064 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a computer science lecturer and network implementation consultant, 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 although the Petitioner 
qualified for the EB-2 visa classification as an advanced degree professional, he had not established 
eligibility for the national interest waiver. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo '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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&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: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
• 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. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, and the record supports this determination. 2 The only issue on appeal is whether the 
Petitioner has met his burden of proof to establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and 
thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, we 
conclude that he has not met this burden. 
The Petitioner represented on the instant Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, that his 
occupation is "communication and network technologist," and his proposed endeavor is to work as an 
"Assistant Professor" to "[c]reate, deploy, and maintain novel computer infrastructure to improve 
network security, performance, and resolve technical challenges to ensure economic growth and 
development." As his worksite location, the Petitioner listed the address of the _______ 
In a separate statement the Petitioner described his proposed endeavor as follows: 
My proposed endeavor is to create, deploy, and maintain novel computer infrastructure 
to improve network security, performance, and resolve technical challenges in order to 
ensure economic growth and development. To progress this endeavor, I will utilize my 
extensive experience with network routing, network infrastructure, artificial 
intelligence, and optical communication networks. My work will continue to be 
circulated in the field through my peer-reviewed publications, conference 
presentations, and its implementations in the field. 
I intend to pursue a position as an assistant professor in the United States. I am most 
interested in pursuing this position with the ________ My planned 
research topics include Implementation of an Enhanced Routing Algorithm in Network 
Infrastructure using Multimeta-heuristic Optimization Algorithm in a real-life Routing 
System and also to Investigate bottleneck/distortion while Transmitting a data over a 
long distant through Optical Fibre Network. 
Based on my experience in the field, I am confident I can attain this, or a very similar 
position related to my proposed endeavor in the United States. 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 The record includes evidence that the Petitioner has the foreign equivalent of a U.S. doctorate degree (Ph.D.) in computer 
science. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). 
2 
In support, the Petitioner initially submitted evidence including his curriculum vitae (CV); a peer 
recommendation letter from a senior security data scientist atl 3 and an advisory opinion 
from an assistant professor of computer science at I I about the 
importance of his work and accomplishments in the field of communication and network technology; 
multiple publications and articles he co-authored; Google Scholar citations record; portions of 
scholarly articles showing citations to the Petitioner's articles; articles about the importance of the 
field of network security; and a Febrnary 2022 report by a subcommittee of the National Science and 
Technology Council titled "Critical and Emerging Technologies List Update," identifying 
"communication and networking technologies" as one of the critical and emerging technology areas 
of particular importance to the national security of the United States. 
The Director subsequently issued a request for evidence (RFE), advising the Petitioner that the 
information in the Form I-140 and the Form ETA 750 inconsistently described his proposed endeavor, 
as "Communication Network Technologist," "Assistant Professor," and researcher. The Director 
stated that "[i]t is not apparent whether securing a position in any of these areas is the proposed 
endeavor or whether the proposed endeavor involves you performing these roles either simultaneously 
or consecutively," and that "[t]he unclear nature of your proposed impedes USCIS in determining if 
your proposed endeavor has substantial merit, is of national importance[], if you are well positioned 
to advance your proposed endeavor .... [ and] 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 addition, the 
Director advised that the Petitioner "did not explain what specific benefits your research will produce." 
The Director further indicated that articles related to the Petitioner's area of expertise, and 
recommendation and advisory opinion letters discussing his documented research in communication 
and network technology, were not sufficient to show that his proposed endeavor of pursuing a position 
of an assistant professor, researcher, and communication and network technologist satisfied the 
national importance criteria outlined in Dhanasar. The Director therefore asked the Petitioner to 
provide additional information, including a detailed description of his proposed endeavor, and 
documentation to establish the endeavor's potential prospective impact, such as its national or global 
implications in the field, potential to employ U.S. workers and enhance societal welfare, or its potential 
impact with respect to a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance 
or which was the subject of national initiatives. 
In response, the Petitioner provided an updated statement further describing his proposed endeavor as 
follows: 
My proposed endeavor is to continue to explore how machine and deep learning 
algorithms are used to develop cutting-edge security models. Especially to guarantee 
the protection of software applications from unauthorized access and manipulations. I 
will also be willing to explore how machine and deep learning algorithms are used to 
optimize network routing. With over five years of experience in active teaching and 
research, I will utilize my extensive experience both in the industry and academics to 
3 Although thel Idata scientist indicates he "previously earned my M.S. and Ph.D. in computational science at 
Iwhere I worked alongside [the Petitioner]," the Petitioner did indicate any association 
with that university on his submitted CV or Part B of Form ETA 750, Application for Alien Employment Ce1iification, 
attesting to his education and work experience. 
3 
I 
pursue my proposed endeavor. Moreover, I will continue to circulate the output of my 
research through peer-reviewed publications in peer-reviewed publications in high­
impact journals, conference proceedings, and chapters in textbooks. 
Also, I intend to pursue a position as an assistant professor of computer science in the 
United States. I am most interested in pursuing this position with the University of 
Chicago. My research endeavors will be centered around developing security models 
for software applications, exploring the use of machine and deep learning algorithms 
for multidisciplinary research, and optimizing network routing for efficient data packet 
transmission over long distances. 
As advertised by Glassdoor [], there are at least 16,830 job vacancies for Assistant 
professors of computer science in the US. [] Therefore, I intend to take up an offer as 
an Assistant professor of computer science at one of these universities to further my 
research endeavors. 
He indicated that the area of his research is vital to the nation because of its implications for protecting 
software applications from cyberattack; analyzing public opinion on organizational or governmental 
policy; analyzing medical images; preventing credit card fraud; and maximizing network efficiency. 
The Petitioner's response indicated that for these reasons, "the benefits of his work extend well beyond 
the confines of his employer to the United States and the world more broadly," and "it is readily 
apparent that [his] proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance." 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that although the Petitioner demonstrated that the 
proposed endeavor had substantial merit, he had not established the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor, that he was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and that on balance, 
waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. The Director therefore determined 
that the Petitioner had not shown his eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The Director explained that although the Petitioner was not required to have a job offer from a specific 
employer, he had not shown that his proposed endeavor, which appeared to be working as "a 
Communication and Network Technologist and an Assistant Professor" and researcher was nationally 
important. In making this determination, the Director acknowledged evidence pointing to the 
importance of communication and network technology to U.S. companies and the U.S. economy in 
general, but concluded that the Petitioner did not show his work would sufficiently extend beyond his 
prospective employer to impact the field or industry more broadly, or that it met any of the other 
factors considered in evaluating a proposed endeavor's national importance under the first prong of 
the Dhanasar 's analytical framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner references his RFE response and asserts that the Director's conflation of his 
proposed employment and his proposed endeavor, along with the dismissal of the "repeated and 
detailed explanations" of his endeavor indicates that the evidence was not sufficiently reviewed. The 
Petitioner states, citing to Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1223 (E.D. Mi. 1994) that failure to 
consider all relevant evidence submitted has been found to be an abuse of discretion. He contends that 
the Director did not sufficiently consider the February 2022 report by a subcommittee of the National 
4 
Science and Technology Council he initially submitted to emphasize that his research in 
communication and network technologies, one of critical and emerging technology areas of particular 
importance to the national security of the United States, aligns with the important government's goals. 
As an initial matter, like the Board of Immigration Appeals we are not bound by the published 
decisions of U.S. district courts even in matters arising within the same district. See Matter ofK-S-, 
20 I&N Dec. 715, 719 (BIA 1993). Thus, while we may consider the reasoning underlying a district 
judge's decision when it is properly before us, we are not required to follow it as a matter oflaw. We 
also note that there is nothing in the Buletini decision to suggest that USCIS abuses its discretion if it 
does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. Rather, so long as USCTS gives 
a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to 
specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece 
of evidence the petitioner presented. Ren v. USCIS, 60 F.4th 89, 97 (4th Cir. 2023); see also 
Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1142-43 (5th Cir. 1984) (stating that "[the Board oflmmigration 
Appeals] has no duty to write an exegesis on every contention"). 
In addition, the record does not sufficiently support the Petitioner's claim that the Director did not 
consider all relevant evidence. To the contrary - the RFE indicates that the Director reviewed the 
initially provided documentation and found it insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor met the national importance requirement. The Director also advised the Petitioner that 
pursuant to Dhanasar, in determining national importance the relevant question is not the importance 
of the field or industry, or profession in which the individual will work, but the specific endeavor that 
the individual proposes to undertake. We cannot therefore conclude that the Director did not consider 
all relevant evidence in evaluating the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver and 
ultimately denying his petition. 
The Petitioner further argues on appeal that the record demonstrates that he satisfies all three prongs 
of the Dhanasar analytical framework, as well as his eligibility for a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. Upon de novo review of the record in its entirety, the Petitioner has not 
established that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, as required under the second 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Accordingly, we conclude that he has not provided 
adequate reasons or evidence on appeal to overcome the Director's determination that he is not eligible 
for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Since this basis for denial is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning his 
eligibility under the first and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues 
that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
The second prong of the Dhanasar framework shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the 
individual. 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 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. 
5 
The Petitioner possesses a doctor of philosophy in computer science from the 
(Nigeria). 4 USCIS considers an advanced degree, particularly a Ph.D. in a Science, Technology, 
Engineering, and Mathematics (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. competitiveness 
or national security, an especially positive factor to be considered along with other evidence for 
purposes of the assessment under the second prong. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. However, a degree in and of itself is not a basis to determine 
that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Id. Although the Petitioner's Ph.D. 
degree in computer science is an especially positive factor, the totality of the evidence in the record, 
as discussed below, does not show that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
Furthermore, 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 record contains recommendation letters referencing the Petitioner's research. Overall, the letters 
provide descriptions of the Petitioner's various research projects; however, in further explaining the 
implementation or impact of his work, the letters generally point to other papers that cited to his research 
in their own written work. The letters do not further elaborate and sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's 
work has been utilized in the field or otherwise constitutes a record or success beyond having been cited 
by others in their published works. Moreover, the lack of specificity in the letters does not show how his 
work has affected the field or industry demonstrating a history of accomplishment, well positioning 
himself to advance his proposed endeavor. For instance, although T-B-, a security data scientist, claimed 
the Petitioner's "research on network infrastructure and routing provides significant benefits for 
communication network systems" that "have tremendous significance for communication and network 
technology research communities in the United States and abroad," T-B- did not offer examples of how 
the Petitioner's research in network infrastructure and routing has been implemented, utilized, or 
applauded in the field, or otherwise represents a record of success or progress rendering the Petitioner 
well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that his research "is featured in highly ranked journals" and that the 
publications have "high impact factors," and cites to evidence in the record ofjournal rankings and impact 
factor data. The fact 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 his peer review activity, the Petitioner provided documentation evidencing his review of 
manuscripts for journals. The Petitioner, however, did not explain the significance of his review 
experience or demonstrate his participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of 
success in his field or it is otherwise an indication that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor. 
4 According to his CV, the Petitioner also obtained a master of science and a bachelor of science in computer science from 
the Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence of these claims. 
6 
I 
The record also includes samples of partial articles that cited to the Petitioner's co-authored work. 
Based on these excerpts, the authors reference the Petitioner's research as background material for 
their own findings, and these limited articles do not represent a level of his success in the field. The 
articles do not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from the other cited papers. 
Regarding his overall citation record, the Petitioner initially provided evidence from Google Scholar 
(GS) reflecting 39 citations from 11 articles, with his highest cited articles receiving 10 and 9 citations, 
respectively. 5 The Petitioner, however, did not specify how many citations were self-citations by him 
or his coauthors. In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner provided updated 
GS figures reflecting 59 total citations, with his highest cited articles receiving 12, 11, and 8 citations, 
respectively. In addition, the Petitioner submitted data from Clarivate Analytics (InCites Essential 
Science Indicators) (CA) regarding baseline citation rates and percentiles by year of publication for 
the computer science field. The Petitioner maintains that his updated GS citations from articles 
published in 2023 ranked among the top l%. The Petitioner did not indicate whether he factored in 
any self-citations in determining these percentile rankings. Moreover, the documentation from CA 
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." 
Further, 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 "[p]]ublications 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 l 0% 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 respect 
to citation information from GS, 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 also submitted data claiming to be 
derived from "OpenAlex" reflecting 91.01 % for "Citation Percentile" and 96.69% for "Publication 
Percentile." Notwithstanding the evidence does not indicate the source as "OpenAlex," the Petitioner 
did not show how "OpenAlex" calculates the percentile figures. Regardless, the Petitioner has not 
established that the number of citations received by his published articles and conference papers reflect 
a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second prong. 
Moreover, while we listed Dr. Dhanasar's "publications and other published materials that cite his 
work" among the documents he presented, our determination that he was well positioned under the 
second prong was not based on his citation record. Rather, in our precedent decision, we found "[t]he 
petitioner's education, expertise, and experience in his field, the significance of his role in research 
projects, as well as the sustained interest of and funding from government entities such as NASA and 
5 None of the Petitioner's remaining articles were cited to more than four times. 
7 
AFRL, position him well to continue to advance his proposed endeavor of hypersonic technology 
research." Id. at 893. 
Here, regarding the Petitioner's plan for future activities, he stated that he intended "to pursue a 
position as an assistant professor in the United States. I am most interested in pursuing this position 
with the University of Chicago." While the Petitioner claims that he would continue his research, he 
did not provide documentation from any such organization identifying the specific projects he intends 
to pursue on their behalf or showing that the position would involve or allow for a continuation of his 
stated proposed endeavor. Without sufficient evidence demonstrating the means or financial support 
to undertake his proposed computer science research in the United States, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that his plan for future activities renders him well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor. 6 
The record demonstrates the Petitioner has conducted and published research at the l______ ..... 
while pursuing his education and subsequently as a lecturer, 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 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 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 has not sufficiently demonstrated his 
published work has served as an impetus for progress in the field or it has generated substantial positive 
discourse in the industry. Nor does the evidence otherwise show his work constitutes a record of 
success or progress in advancing his research. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong set forth in 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 For example, the Petitioner did not offer evidence showing that he has received funding for his 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. 
8