dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Vision And Artificial Intelligence

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MARCH 5, 2025 In Re: 33959649 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a research scientist in computer v1s10n and artificial intelligence (Al), 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 qualified for 
EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but did not establish 
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 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 
I 
• 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 
In his letter submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated 
his proposed endeavor is to conduct research in computer vision and artificial intelligence while 
earning his doctoral degree at I I and then as a research scientist at an AI 
research laboratory. The Petitioner explained he would work on developing AI systems capable of 
detecting objects of interest, developing an AI cancer detection system for pathology image analysis, 
and safeguarding object detection systems against attacks. 
The Petitioner holds a Master of Science degree in electrical engineering from the ____ 
I The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree. We agree. The only issue on appeal is whether he 
qualifies for and merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual 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. The 
Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor. We 
agree. 
The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed 
endeavor has substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the 
field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. On appeal, the 
Petitioner claims the Director erroneously concluded that his proposed endeavor only impacts his 
employer and did not accurately assess the relevant evidence. We agree. 
The record shows the Petitioner has published research related to his proposed endeavor, which has 
been highly cited. He submitted evidence that he has co-authored numerous articles and patent 
applications, and he is the first author on half of his articles. The Petitioner also submitted evidence 
that his articles have been cited a total of 313 times and that 95 percent of the citations to his work 
were by independent research teams. The record also demonstrates the high-ranking in the field of 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
computer vision of the conference proceedings and journal in which his work was published. This 
significant publication and citation record shows the broad impact of the Petitioner's work in his field. 
The Petitioner also submitted letters from other scientists attesting to the broad implications and 
national importance of his work in AI and computer vision. For example, Z-K-2, Professor of 
Interactive Computing at the describes the Petitioner as "a major 
contributor to the field, particularly through his development of next-generation algorithms for 
ensuring optimal computer vision applications in smart systems like smart homes, smart stores, and 
smart hotels." 
Letters from other scientists attest to the impact of the Petitioner's AI research on national security 
and on appeal, the Petitioner submits the February 2024 Critical and Emerging Technologies List 
Update of the National Science and Technology Council which identifies AT as a critical and emerging 
technology "of particular importance to the national security of the United States." 
J-B-D-, Data Scientist at the explains the Petitioner's research on 
object detection "is directly relevant to the national security and defense interests of the United States, 
aligning with the strategic objectives of the I I J-B-D- states the Petitioner's 
"innovative techniques in enhancing object detection with limited data not only advance the current 
state of autonomous systems, but are also pivotal for the integration of AI in critical defense contexts 
where data scarcity is a challenging limitation." J-B-D- explains the Petitioner's work "has great 
potential to enhance the precision of AT systems used in surveillance, reconnaissance, and autonomous 
vehicular technology, areas vital to our national security interests." 
M-S-, Professor of Artificial Intelligence at also states the Petitioner's 
work significantly impacts national security. M-S- describes how the Petitioner's face detection 
algorithm was incorporated into the Department of Defense's I Isuch that "when an 
enemy device ( cellphone, laptop) was seized by special forces, it would be analyzed by ... face 
software to match against an enemy terrorist watchlist." M-S- also explains how the Petitioner's 
research has been applied in "high impactful commercial applications," such as AI object detectors 
built by the Petitioner that were deployed to 5501 lstores throughout the United States. M-S­
further states the Petitioner's AI methodologies in three patented technologies were deployed in over 
350 I lstores across the nation. 
These letters and the Petitioner's publications and citation record demonstrate the potential prospective 
impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The record shows the Petitioner's research in AI and 
computer vision has broad commercial applications and significantly impacts national security. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and the 
Director's contrary determination is withdrawn. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second Dhanasar prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To 
determine whether individuals are well positioned to advance their proposed endeavors, we consider 
2 We use initials to protect the privacy of the referenced individuals. 
3 
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. at 890. In determining the Petitioner was not well positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor, the Director did not consider these factors but concluded the Petitioner had not demonstrated 
the impact of his work on his field. On appeal, the Petitioner correctly asserts that the impact of the 
Petitioner's work on his field is germane to the first Dhanasar prong, which the Petitioner has met, 
and the evidence demonstrates the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor 
under the factors discussed in Dhanasar. 
The record documents the Petitioner's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in efforts 
related to his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner holds a master's degree in electrical engineering and 
is pursuing his doctorate in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering at 
The record also shows the Petitioner has served as a peer reviewer for 
prestigious journals and conferences in his field. Z-K-, M-S- and J-B-D- further attest to the 
Petitioner's skills, knowledge and record of success in computer vision and AI, specifically in object 
detection. They also discuss how they have relied on his research and the progress he has made in 
achieving his proposed endeavor, specifically in developing AI systems capable of detecting objects 
of interest. 
J-B-D- describes the Petitioner's research on object detection as "aligning with the strategic objectives 
of the ________ He explains that the Petitioner's! l"represents a significant 
leap forward in object detection, enabling detecting novel categories with minimal training data by 
leveraging semantic relations." 
Z-K- explains that the Petitioner developed "an innovative Soft Anchor Point Detector method" and 
"the Selective Query Recollection method," which "ensure high-performance face detection" and "the 
accuracy of a wide range of artificial intelligence systems, including but not limited to automatic drive 
platforms, visual security platforms, and smart facilities ranging from smart homes to smart hotels and 
smart stores." Z-K- states his research team has cited the Petitioner's work in their publications where 
they "recognized [the Petitioner's] work for its unique contribution of exceptional anchor-free object 
detector and soft selection techniques." Z-K- explains, "[h]aving reaped the benefits of [the 
Petitioner's] work firsthand, I am beyond confident that he has led the field in this important area." 
M-S- states the Petitioner "developed an advanced detector that predicts arbitrary quadrilateral 
bounding boxes - the very first detection platform of its kind in the history of the computer vision 
field," which "improves the accuracy of product localization." M-S- further commends the 
Petitioner's creation of I I the world's largest product detection dataset ... facilitating on-
product text information recognition - another first-of-its-kind technology." M-S- explains the 
Petitioner also "established a _____________________ that offers 
significantly better performance ... as compared to existing detectors in the field." M-S- states the 
Petitioner's research has been leveraged by and laboratories in the 
United States and abroad at the 
4 
The Petitioner's publications, citation record, and patent applications also demonstrate the interest of 
other scientists in his work and the progress he has made towards achieving his proposed endeavor. 
As previously discussed, the record shows the Petitioner's publications have been cited 313 times. In 
regard to the Petitioner's proposal to develop an AI cancer detection system for pathology image 
analysis, the record shows the Petitioner co-authored a patent application entitled! I 
I I In regard to the object detection as ect of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor, the record shows the Petitioner's article entitled
Ihas been cited 164 times and his article entitled _________
I lhas been cited 151 times. The Petitioner also submitted evidence often 
patent applications on object detection that he co-authored, including two of which he is the first 
author. 
In his RFE response letter, the Petitioner described in detail his plans for future research in AI object 
detection systems, including creating a system to detect cancerous pathologies in medical images and 
safeguarding the integrity of object detection systems. The Petitioner explained he would pursue his 
proposed endeavor as a research scientist in a university or other AT laboratory and M-S- stated his 
intention to hire the Petitioner as a research scientist within the _____________ 
In sum, the relevant evidence demonstrates the Petitioner's education, skills, knowledge, record of 
success, plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and the interest 
in his work of other scientists in his field. The Petitioner has established that he is well-positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor and the Director's contrary determination is withdrawn. 
C. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial 
The third Dhanasar 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. In 
performing this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the 
individual's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure 
a job offer or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers 
are available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national 
interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. 
In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish 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. 
Id. at 890-91. 
The Director did not assess the Petitioner's eligibility under these factors, and determined the 
Petitioner did not meet this prong because he did not meet the first and second prongs. On appeal, the 
Petitioner has established the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor and 
that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner asserts he meets the third 
prong under the factors articulated in Dhanasar. The record does not support the Petitioner's claims. 
The Petitioner's education and proposed endeavor in a science, technology, engineering, and math 
(STEM) field merit special consideration under United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) Policy. USCIS recognizes the importance of progress in STEM fields and the essential role 
that individuals with advanced STEM degrees have in fostering such progress. 6 USCIS Policy 
5 
Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/. Accordingly, strong positive factors to 
consider when assessing the third Dhanasar prong include possession of an advanced STEM degree, 
engagement in work furthering a critical and emerging technology, and being well positioned to 
advance the proposed STEM endeavor of national importance. Id. All of these factors are present in 
the Petitioner's case. 
However, the Petitioner has not established his eligibility under the factors identified in Dhanasar. 
The Petitioner asserts it would be impractical for him to secure a job offer because at the time of filing 
he was completing his doctoral degree, "a position that is inherently temporary" and the regulations 
require an offer of permanent employment. However, M-S- stated his intention to hire the Petitioner 
as a research scientist within thel IM-S- did not indicate that the 
position was temporary. Consequently, the record does not support the Petitioner's claim that it would 
be impractical for him to obtain a job offer. 
The Petitioner also asserts there is an urgent national interest in the Petitioner's research because his 
proposed endeavor involves critical and emerging technologies and computer vision systems for 
commercial and defense AI applications. We acknowledge the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor and recognize that it involves critical and emerging technologies. The Petitioner 
has not established, however, that the national interest in his contributions is sufficiently urgent to 
warrant forgoing the labor certification process. While they praise the Petitioner's accomplishments 
and attest to the national importance of his proposed endeavor, Z-K-, M-S- and J-B-D- do not indicate 
that the national interest in the Petitioner's work is so urgent it could not wait for him to obtain a labor 
certification. 
The relevant evidence does not show that it would be impractical for the Petitioner to obtain a job 
offer or labor certification and does not establish that the national interest in the Petitioner's 
contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Considered 
together, these factors do not establish 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 the Petitioner's case. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established that he is an advanced degree professional eligible for EB-2 
classification, and that he meets the first and second Dhanasar prongs. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that he meets the third Dhanasar prong and merits a waiver of the job offer requirement 
in the national interest. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6