dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25051398 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 9, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an electrical engineer, 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. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that that the Petitioner 
had not established 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. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Next, a 
petitioner 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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 
889 (AAO 2016) provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of 
discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• 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. 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 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. 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated eligibility under Dhanasar's three-prong analytical framework. 
A Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director determined that although the Petitioner established the 
substantial merit of his proposed endeavor, he did not show its national importance. 
In his initial statement, the Petitioner indicated: 
My proposed endeavor is to build on robust and reliable MEMS [microelectromechanical 
systems] switches through investigating novel contact materials, contact geometries, and 
actuators using my extensive experience with device physics, modeling and simulation, 
micro-device fabrication, electrical and mechanical characterization, and advanced optical 
and electron microscopy in order to facilitate the next generation of wireless 
communication technology, such as 5G and Internet of Things (IOT) applications .... 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner further explained: 
My proposed endeavor is to explore novel contact materials and develop micro-device 
fabrication methods to facilitate the next generation of wireless communication 
technology, including 5G/6G and [IOT]. Specifically, I will work to improve the 
semiconductor microchip design, modeling and manufacturing of a [MEMS] switch by 
building a novel microchip testing system to facilitate the data collection needed to 
design a reliable and robust MEMS switch. This technology will be useful not only for 
5G/6G and IOT applications, but for use in aerospace and defense contexts as well. 
A MEMS switch is a tiny semiconductor microchip and it is the heart of any 
microsystem. It performs the most sophisticated switching and sensing functions in all 
wireless devices, including cell phones, automobiles, satellites, and aerospace vehicles. 
However, reliability and performance are prime concerns in enabling these switches to 
be ubiquitously commercialized by the industry. In a MEMS switch, micro-actuators 
and microcontact materials play a critical role in determining reliability and 
performance. I have built a semiconductor microchip testing system to investigate the 
reliability and performance associated with a MEMS switch. I plan to investigate the 
design, modeling, manufacturing and testing of micro-actuators, contact materials, 
contact geometries and their manufacturing methods using my custom-built testing 
system. I plan to collect data to study and analyze for designing and manufacturing a 
future robust and reliable MEMS switch for next-generation wireless technology 
2 
applications such as 5G/6G and IOT applications, as well as for satellite, aerospace, 
and defense applications .... 
In support of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner provided various articles discussing MEMS, IOT, 
5G, microchip technology, microsystems, and semiconductors. Considering the totality of the 
evidence, the Petitioner has sufficiently shown the substantial merit and national importance of his 
proposed endeavor, consistent with the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner in order to determine 
whether the individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 890. The record contains his curriculum vitae, educational credentials, an employment letter, 
reference letters, journal articles and conference papers, citatory evidence, funding documentation, 
and peer review activity. 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. 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner points out that he has an advanced degree in a Science, 
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics [STEM] field and references the USCIS Policy Manual. 
USCIS considers an advanced degree, particularly a Ph.D. in a 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 master's degree in engineering 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. 2 
Further, the Petitioner indicates that he provided an employment letter froml !University 
reflecting that he occupies a research position as a Ph.D. student, and the university intends to hire him 
as a post-doctoral fellow once he completes his degree. The Petitioner, however, did not show how his 
current, temporary job and prospective, contingent position well situates himself to advance his proposed 
endeavor. 
The record contains additional recommendation letters referencing the Petitioner's graduate research. 
Overall, the letters provide descriptions of the Petitioner's various research projects; however, in further 
2 According to his curriculum vitae, the Petitioner claims to have earned master of science and bachelor of science degrees 
from the University of however, the record only contains evidence of his master of engineering 
degree from the University o 
3 
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 do 
not show how his work has affected the field or industry demonstrating a history of accomplishment, well 
positioning himself to advance his proposed endeavor. 
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 31 citations, with his highest cited article receiving 10 citations. The Petitioner, 
however, did not specify how many citations were self-citations by him or his coauthors. Furthermore, 
the Petitioner submitted data from Clarivate Analytics (CA) regarding baseline citation rates and 
percentiles by year of publication for the engineering field. The Petitioner claimed that his citations 
from articles published in 2018 ranked among the top 20%. 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." 
In response to the director's RFE, the Petitioner provided updated GS figures reflecting 45 total 
citations, with his highest cited article receiving 16 citations. In addition, he offered a list of 3 8 
highlighted articles claiming to represent independent citations. Further, he submitted an email from 
CA explaining that "[tt ]he word skew simply describes a natural phenomenon of citation distributions: 
a few papers receive many cites, whereas most papers receive a few or no cites" and "[t]his is merely 
a natural fact, and [CA] has no influence on this." However, this response does not demonstrate the 
accuracy and reliability of CA information. 
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. Further, the Petitioner asserts that his "citation count dwarfed ... the 
petitioner in Dhanasar" in our 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, 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 AFRL, position him well to continue to advance his proposed 
endeavor of hypersonic technology research." Id. at 893. 
The record also includes a letter from Dr. R-A-C- atOstating that the Petitioner has worked on a 
project that was partially funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation's I I I program. However, the record does not contain copies of the research grant showing 
the Petitioner as a named grant recipient. In Dhanasar, the record established that the petitioner 
4 
"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. Here, the record does not show that 
the Petitioner was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for the research project. 
As it relates to his peer review activity, the Petitioner provided documentation evidencing his review 
of manuscripts for journals and conferences. The Petitioner, however, did not explain the significance 
of his review experience or demonstrate 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 endeavor. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted and published research while pursuing his 
education, 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, however, has not sufficiently demonstrated that his published work has served 
as an impetus for progress in the field or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the 
industry. Nor does the evidence otherwise show that his work constitutes a record of success or 
progress in advancing his research. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the record is insufficient to demonstrate 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. As such, analysis of his eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, 
would serve no meaningful purpose. 3 Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown eligibility for a national 
interest waiver. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that ·'courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 
issues in the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-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). 
5