dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical And Computer Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4286860 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 18, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability , National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , an electrical and 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 rramework. 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 filin the Petitioner was a raduate student and research assistant in thel I 
atl I University. The record includes a letter of 
~ from.__ ________ ~professor and chair of Electrical and Computr Engineering at 
L___J University, stating that the Petitioner has served "as a doctoral researcher in land is 
completing his degree under my advisement." 5 On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that he is currently 
working as a postdoctoral researcher atl !University and I I University. He provides 
letters from both universities confirming his appointment as a postdoctoral research associate at 
I O I University and as a visiting research collaborator atl !University. 6 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicated that he intends to continue his research relating to 
,__ __ __." He explained that his proposed work is aimed at designing efficient algorithms for future 
wireless networks, evaluating end-user behavior and developing prospect pricing in wireless data 
networks, and optimizing resource allocation for smart cities. The Petitioner also stated that he plans 
to undertake research involving development of a framework for managing online distractions 
encountered in learning. 
The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit and national importance. For example, 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.__ _______ __. and 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Petitioner received a Master of Science degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering froml I University 
(October 2017). 
5 After filing the petition, the Petitioner received his Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering froml I university 
(October 2018). 
6 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 current and prospective 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 
wireless communications research, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner 
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, peer review activities, published articles, 
and conference presentations. He also offered evidence of articles that cited to his published work, 
and reference letters discussing his graduate work under the guidance ofl I atl I 
University. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that his academic qualifications 7, work experience, research articles, 
citation evidence 8, and grant funding for his research indicate that he is well positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor. For the reasons discussed below, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that 
he is well positioned to advance his proposed research under Dhanasar' s second prong. 
In letters supporting the petition, the Petitioner's references discussed his graduate research projects. 9 
For example, I [ asserted that "[o]ne of the [Petitioner's] best-known and widel -
influential research nroiects involved the us~ ~o_f..__ ____ ~ _______________ ___. 
I " _ J ex lained that the Petitioner "analyzed 
b 
~ in a cooperative network composed of~------------~ through an 
model that he developed" and "demonstrated how both sets of users behaved in this type of 
network." He also noted that the Petitioner's model showed "howl I I I evolve according to specific user cooperation levels under varying channel conditions" and 
that their work was published in "proceedings of the IEEE 2016 Annual Conference on Information 
Science and Systems." The record includes a January 2019 citation report from Google Scholar 
indicating that their research article reporting these findings has received eight citations since its 
publication in 2016. 10 
7 As previously noted, the Petitioner received his Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering after the petition's filing 
date. Eligibility, however, must be established at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
8 For instance, the Petitioner provided a Google Scholar citation report indicating that as of January 2019, his and D 
I Is article in IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] Journal on Selected Areas in 
Communications had received 37 citations since its publication in 2017. The Petitioner argues that he has a stronger 
citation record than Dr. Dhanasar, the petitioner in our Dhanasar precedent decision. 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, experience, and expertise 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 AFRL, position him well to 
continue to advance his proposed endeavor of hypersonic technology research." Id. at 893. We look to a variety of factors 
in determining whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and citations are merely one factor 
among many that may contribute to such a finding. 
9 We discuss only a sampling of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
10 Half of these citations reflect self-citation by the Petitioner and his coauthors,! land I , I The 
Petitioner provided 2017 and 2018 data from Clarivate Analytics regarding baseline citation rates and percentiles by year 
of publication for various research fields, including "Computer Science" and "Engineering." This documentation from 
Clarivate Analytics 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 
4 
Another coauthor of the Petitioner.I I an enterprise account architect with._! _____ ___. 
I I stated: "In our work to ether at the Petitioner] created a business model that 
incentivizes the various ~---------~--~ components to take part in the I I I I ... [The Petitioner] discovered that components were willing tol labove a 
specific popularity threshold, and also realized~----~ approaches." I I indicated that 
the Petitioner's method "improves the delivery of streaming content by accounting for bot~ I I I together," but did not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's business 
model has been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in the field. 
In addition, I I professor at the I I University of I I mentioned the 
Petitioner's research relating to joint.__ ______ ____. strategies in I I and asserted that the 
Petitioner's work "has had a marked impact on the work of numerous other researchers." For instance, 
I !contended that "[i]n their paper '~-------------------~ 
I I et al. relied on [the Petitioner's] findings to arrive at a solution for the 
I I in content provider networks." 11 I I further claimed that the 
aforementioned authors used the Petitioner's 'i I and l I 
model," but a review of their paper does not support this conclusion. In the "Related Works" section of 
their paper, the authors cited to the Petitioner's use of 'I I to model content 
popularity and ~ I approach to determine I I strategies in I I I f' but their paper does not single out the Petitioner's work as particularly important or 
further discuss implementation of his I I model orl I approach. Rather, his 
findings were discussed only in the "Related Works" section as background information to I I et 
al.' s paper. 
Regarding the Petitioner's research relating tol D in i= I sensor 
networks, I I professor of electrical and computer engineering"°;c=Juniversity, 
asserted that the Petitioner developed "a I ~framework that was able to combat 
.__ _________ ~ issues and I delays. This demonstrated ~ 
parallelism was able to improve feasibility i~~-----~implementation." Furthermore,LJ 
I l professor of electrical and computer engineering at University ofl ,I 
described the Petitioner's work involving utilization ofl I sensor networks as 
"innovative and influential." I I also noted that he cited the Petitioner's findings in his 
published work. The aforementioned Google Scholar report reflects that the Petitioner's article in 
IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, entitled 1 I I ~ has been cited 16 times since 2014. The Petitioner, however, has not 
demonstrated that this number of citations constitutes a record of success or a level of interest in his 
work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second prong. 
With regard to his peer review activities, the Petitioner provided evidence indicating that he reviewed 
articles for Ad Hoc Networks, Computer Networks, IEEE Communications Letters, Transactions on 
Information Forensics and Security, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Transactions on 
distribution." Regardless, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of independent citations received by his 
article in proceedings of the IEEE 2016 Annual Conference on Information Science and Systems reflects a level of interest 
in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet this prong. 
11 This paper similarly referenced numerous other authors' findings as background information. 
5 
Network Science and Engineering, IEEE Transactions on Communications, IEEE International 
Symposium on Information Theory, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Conference 
on Communication Systems and Networks, and IEEE Wireless Communications Letters. The 
Petitioner has not shown that his 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. 
As farther evidence under Dhanasar' s second prong, the Petitioner provided email communications 
he received from a visiting scholar he met at the Globecom 2015 conference and from a student 
pursuing a Master of Technology degree in communication systems at National Institute of 
Technology.I I in India. The first individual asked the Petitioner to send him papers 
relating to the "issue of~------- coordination" and the second one requested help with 
calculating "the I I factor required for the calculation of the I I 
I I coefficients." The Petitioner has not demonstrated that these two requests signify a level of 
interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second prong. 
The Petitioner also contends that he has received fonding for his research from government sources. 
He presented his published articles which indicate that his work atl I University was supported 
by organizations such as the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), National Natural Science 
Foundation of China, and Office of Naval Research. In addition, the Petitioner submitted an email 
from the NSF asking him to provide "demographic information" relating to his participation in an 
NSF-supported project. This email states: "You have been identified by the Principal Investigator/ co­
Principal Investi ator s as contributing to the following NSF-supported project. . . . PI/co-PI(s): 
I I ~--,-------,---'' The aforementioned documentation does not identify the 
~r as Principal Investigator or co-Principal Investigator. Rather, it appears his professors at 
L__JUniversity (such asl I and I I filled those roles and were thus 
primarily responsible for securing the fonding for his research projects. In Dhanasar, the record 
established that the petitioner "initiated" or was "the primary award contact on several fonded grant 
proposals" and that he was "the only listed researcher on many of the grants." Id. at 893, n.11. Here, 
the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than his professors) was mainly responsible for 
obtaining governmental fonding for his research projects. 
The evidence indicates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during his 
graduate studies, 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, fonding, or academic credit, not every individual who has performed original graduate 
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 electrical 
and computer engineering field or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the wireless 
communications industry. Nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that his work constitutes a 
record of success or progress in researching"=--------,,-----~ networks. As the record is 
6 
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 education, 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 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. 
7