dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 23, 2024 In Re: 33378475 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a post-doctoral researcher, 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 the Petitioner did not 
establish that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant 
this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the 
national interest to do so. 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 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; 
• 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 for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree.2 We agree with the Director's determin ation. The issue 
on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus 
a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner demonstrated his proposed endeavor has substantial merit 
and is of national importance, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
However, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that he is well-positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong, or 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 
under Dhanasar's third prong. Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's determination that 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed research under 
Dhanasar's second prong or that a waiver of the labor certification would be in the national interest.3 
At the time of filing , the Petitioner conducted post-doctoral research at the I 
______ in Germany. He proposes to pursue a post-doctoral researcher position at a 
U.S. university so that he can continue his research on emotion detection and recognition in human­
robot interactions and publish his work in conference materials and journals in his field.4 He states 
that his research would focus on "developing cutting-edge algorithms, models, and methodologies for 
emotion-aware interactions between humans and social robots in order to improve the ability of 
computers to recognize and process human emotion and facilitate design of advanced user interfaces 
for human-robot interactions." His research would include "the development of cognitive models for 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir . 2023) Uoining the Ninth , Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
Circuit Court in an unpubl ished decision) i n concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a nati onal interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
2 To demonstrate he is an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner submitted his certificate for a doctor of engineering 
science from __________ in Germany in 2023, a certificate from the university attesting to the 
Petitioner's dates of attendance for his doctoral research work , and an academic evaluation . The record demonstrates that 
he attained the foreign equivalent to a U.S. doctorate. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3) . 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted , we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 In addition to his research work , the Petitioner also intends to teach with a department of computer science at a U.S. 
university . In Dhanasar , we discussed how teaching would not impact a field broadly in a manner which rises to national 
importance. The benefit of someone's teaching is generally only directly beneficial t o the students being taught and not 
the wider population. Similar to Dhanasar , the Petiti oner's teaching activities at a U.S. university do not rise to the level 
of national importance. Therefore, our analysis is limited to the Petit ioner's proposed endeavor to conduct research with 
a U.S. university. 
2 
social robots based on visual, verbal, and paralinguistic cues" and facilitate "customized user support 
via advanced [human-robot interaction] interfaces." By enhancing human-robot interactions, he 
indicates his research has the potential to improve industries, such as healthcare, customer service, 
education, manufacturing, defense, and agriculture. The record includes recommendation letters from 
the Petitioner's former professors explaining the Petitioner's doctoral research and indicating his 
research helps advance computer science and artificial intelligence. We agree with the Director that 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and is of national importance. 
The second Dhanasar prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. To 
determine whether an individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider 
factors including, but not limited to 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. at 890. The Director determined that, after consideration of these factors, the evidence 
submitted did not establish that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor of 
research in his field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director erred in the decision with incorrect conclusions of 
law or fact and abused their discretion in analyzing his petition. He maintains that the Director did 
not evaluate all the relevant evidence, including citations mentioned in his statement which show that 
his work has influenced researchers in his field and has added to the development of social robots. By 
subjecting him to an incorrect heightened standard of review by requiring he demonstrate a level of 
influence in his field, the Petitioner argues this heightened standard is contrary to the Dhanasar 
decision which states, "our adjudication experience in the years . .. has revealed that there are some 
talented individuals for whom past achievements are not necessarily the best or only predictor of future 
success." 
The record includes the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, academic records for his doctorate of 
engineering science, his conference publications, articles citing to his research work, his Google 
Scholar citation record, a portion of a book he authored, letters of recommendation, and 
acknowledgements of his review of peer conference papers. He specifically highlights his educational 
credentials, citation history from his research, and his evaluation of work of his peers to support how 
well he is positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner has the foreign equivalent of a U.S. doctorate having received adoctorate in engineering 
science from I Iin Germany in 2023. We acknowledge that the 
Petitioner has an advanced degree in ascience, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) field 
which is tied to his proposed work to further develop human-robot interaction interfaces. The 
Petitioner stresses that his work is related to an area of critical and emerging technology or other 
STEM area important to U.S. competitiveness or national security, an especially positive factor under 
3 
the second Dhanasar prong.5 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https: 
//www.uscis.gov/pol icy-manual. 
We recognize the importance of progress in STEM fields and the role of persons with advanced STEM 
degrees, particularly with a Ph.D., in fostering this progress, especially in focused critical and 
emerging technologies or other STEM areas important to U.S. competitiveness or national security. 
Id. We agree with the Petitioner that we consider his Ph.D. in a STEM field tied to his proposed 
endeavor in developing human-machine interface to be an especially positive factor for establishing 
the second Dhanasar prong. However, when considered with other evidence in the record, the 
Petitioner has not shown that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor as contemplated 
by Dhanasar. In addition to education, we look to a variety of factors in determining whether a 
petitioner is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor and education is one factor among 
many that may contribute to such a finding. Id. 
In Dhanasar, the petitioner held three advanced degrees, including a Ph.D., tied to his proposed 
research which had significant implications for U.S. national security and competitiveness. To 
determine whether the petitioner was well-positioned to continue to advance his proposed endeavor, 
we also favorably considered the significance of his research which had been corroborated by evidence 
as having peer and government interest; the significance of his role in his research projects; consistent 
funding from government agencies of his research projects; and his position with a U.S. university 
where he intended to conduct his proposed research work. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 892-
93. 
The Petitioner argues his record of success is evidenced by his published and presented research 
having several "notable" citations by researchers who complimented his work and which show his 
research serves as an influence for progress in the field of social robotics. The Petitioner maintains 
that his statement details his successes in robotics research, including his work "to train neural 
networks to extract subtle perceptual features ... , as well as his accomplishments in optimizing and 
fine-tuning machine-learning models to function in dynamic interaction scenarios." He provides 
further detailed descriptions of his work outlined in his statement and maintains that the Director's 
decision failed to meaningfully address his statement. Arguing his research's citation history shows 
"considerably more success in disseminating his research" than the petitioner in Dhanasar, the 
Petitioner submitted on appeal evidence of Dr. Dhanasar's citation history. The Petitioner emphasizes 
that the evidence shows he had 38 citations at the time of filing while Dr. Dhanasar only had 23 
citations at the time of his filing. 
Our review of the Petitioner's citation history in Google Scholar indicates that most of his citations 
are self-citations or citations by his co-authors. 6 While the Petitioner provided evidence of a few 
independent publications citing his work, such independent citations are limited. Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not submit evidence that his citation record is comparatively high in his field or that his 
work and proposed endeavor have otherwise garnered the interest of other researchers in his field. 
5 "USCIS considers an advanced degree, particularly a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), in aSTEM field tied to the proposed 
endeavor and related to work furthering a critical and emerging technology or other STEM area important to 
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 generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(2). 
6 See information from https://scholar.google.com accessed on August 21, 2024. 
4 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown that his published work has attracted a sufficient level of 
interest from relevant parties or otherwise renders him well-positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor. 
In addition, the Petitioner claims to have a record of success through his peer review of others in his 
field. In support of his peer review work, the Petitioner submitted two emails acknowledging his peer 
review work. However, it is not clear from the record the extent of his peer review or whether his 
level of participation in the peer review process represented a record of success in his field or is 
otherwise an indication that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
Next, the Petitioner argues that like the petitioner in Dhanasar, he demonstrated government interest 
in his research. He stresses that his research " involves the advancement of artificial intelligence, 
human-machine interface, and autonomous systems and robots, all areas of considerable government 
interest" and which are considered "critical" technologies. However, in Dhanasar, the petitioner 
showed government interest in his research by providing evidence that he obtained government 
funding supporting his research. Whereas here, the Petitioner claims that his research is involved in 
an area of government interest, but he has not shown that the government has an interest in his research 
work. For instance, the Petitioner did not offer evidence showing that he has received funding or other 
support 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. Without further evidence, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated government interest in his work. 
Next, the Petitioner claims his statement sufficiently detailed his plans for carrying out his proposed 
endeavor, including his description of three projects and his intent to seek a post-doctoral research 
position with a U.S. university, such as the Social Robotics Lab at Yale University. Although 
employment is not a requirement for a national interest waiver, the Petitioner has not submitted 
evidence of interest from Yale University or another U.S. university. Where a petitioner does not 
intend to be self-employed, we consider job offers or communications with prospective employers, 
while not required, relevant to show the circumstances or capacity in which the petitioner intends to 
carry out the proposed endeavor and the feasibility of that plan. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F.5(D)(l) n. 53. While we consider the Petitioner's plan for conducting his research work 
at Yale University or another U.S. university useful in understanding his proposed endeavor, he has 
not provided evidence relevant to show the feasibility of his plan. Without sufficient evidence 
demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake his proposed 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. 
Lastly, arguing his research work has the interest of relevant entities and individuals in his field, the 
Petitioner points to two letters of recommendation from his colleagues with knowledge of his research 
and who attest to his qualifications. The colleagues are university professors who explain having 
worked with the Petitioner and detail his research projects. They claim that the Petitioner's research 
has influenced computer scientists because his work has been published in conference articles and in 
book chapters. While the letters generally express that the Petitioner's research has made "significant 
advances" in his field and "further the progress of social robots," they do not sufficiently detail how 
the Petitioner's specific research work has influenced their field of human-robot interaction interface. 
5 
Although the letters provide details of his research work and general praise for his research "making 
groundbreaking advances in the development of robots that interact with humans," they do not provide 
details or examples of how the Petitioner's specific work has influenced their research or others in 
their field so that we could evaluate whether it represents a record of success or progress rendering the 
Petitioner well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. We must consider the weight of each 
piece of evidence and determine whether the aggregate is enough to meet the second Dhanasar prong. 
Here, the limited evidence of interest is insufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden. In sum, while 
the Petitioner has conducted productive research that has been useful to some of his colleagues, he has 
not demonstrated sufficient progress or success in his field, or interest in his work from relevant 
parties, to show that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor. 
Here, although the record demonstrates that the Petitioner conducted research during and after his 
doctorate studies, he has not demonstrated that his academic credentials and this research work render 
him well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Whilst 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. The Petitioner here has not sufficiently 
demonstrated that his published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in human­
robots interaction research. Here, the limited evidence of interest is insufficient to meet the 
Petitioner's burden. As the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is well-positioned to advance his 
proposed research endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner is well­
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor as required by the second prong of the Dhanasar 
precedent decision, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. This identified 
basis for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, and therefore we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments and eligibility under the third prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "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). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has 
not established that 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6