dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Entomology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16915341 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 28, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a post-doctoral research associate, seeks second preference immigrant classification as 
an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, 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). After a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 
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. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Nebraska Service Center Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for classification as an 
advanced degree professional and that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national 
importance. However, the Director concluded that the evidence did not establish that the Petitioner is 
well positioned to advance the endeavor, or that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the 
labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen and 
reconsider the Director's decision and although the Director granted motion, he ultimately determined 
that the Petitioner had not overcome the reasons for the denial. 
On appeal, the Petitioner offers a brief and relies on evidence previously submitted to argue that he 
qualifies for a national interest waiver. In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification (emphasis added), 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 of job 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. 
Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to 
architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
2 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
Furthermore, 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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016).1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, 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. 3 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The Petitioner holds a doctorate degree in entomology, which he earned from a U.S. university 
in 2013. The Director found that the evidence of record established the substantial merit and national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. However, upon de nova review and for the reasons discussed 
below, we must withdraw the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner met the national importance 
portion of the first prong. 
At the time off iling, the Petitioner was working as a post-doctoral research associate inl I 
.___ _ ____.l's laboratory at the University ofl I In this position, the Petitioner 
worked on a federal I funded research ro·ect to study the mechanisms through which an invasive 
~ect, the.___-----.------..---• transmits thel I 
L__J to plants, particularly.___ _ __,plants. I I stated that the Petitioner's research is 
important to pest management programs because understanding how~ _____ ____.negatively 
impact plants is critical to national biosecurity. Their research has the potential to improve crop 
protection and plant resistance, which could also reduce the need to use environmentally harmful 
pesticides and help meetthe growing need to feed our population. In response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner described this research as protecting crops from pathogens and 
encouraging a plant's natural defenses to ward offc=]attacks. 
The Petitioner included evidence that he is an entomologist working atl land as such, he is 
geographically at the center of the United States' crop production. In support, the Petitioner provided 
website information onl t entomology department, what students study in an entomology 
degree program, and how graduates might be able to use their entomology degrees. The Petitioner 
also provided his employment offer letter to evidence his position within thel I entomology 
department. While the Petitioner may work at a university with a strong research reputation, this 
evidence does not establish the substantial merit or national importance of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor. Moreover, the importance of the field and what graduates can do with their degree also 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
2 See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a national interest wa iverto bed iscretionary in nature). 
3 See Dhanasar, 261 &N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on thesethreeprongs. 
3 
does not establish that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor qualifies under the first prong of 
the Dhanasar framework. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Id. at 889. 
In the Petitioner's personal statement, he described that within the next two years, he hopes to 
accomplish the majority of thel ~ research obligations towards the objectives ofl I I I interactions. The Petitioner explained that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
awarded the grant funding for this project in 2018 and that the Petitioner intends to follow the project 
through to the completion of the stated goals. In the next two to five years, the Petitioner intends to 
occupy a faculty position at a tier one research university in the United States where he can conduct 
research on insect-pathogen-plant interactions. He stated that he will seek a research faculty position 
that also allows him to teach and mentor students. Beyond five years, the Petitioner hopes to achieve 
status as a highly regarded expert in his field, running his own research programs at a tier one research 
university and engaging in collaborative research with is peers from all over the world. The 
Petitioner's personal statement contains the bulk of the information we have concerning the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. While the Petitioner submitted numerous letters of recommendation 
from other researchers and academics in the field, none of the authors discussed the Petitioner's 
proposed future endeavor. Instead, the authors primarily focused on the Petitioner's past or current 
work. 
In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to unde1iake." Id. at 889. Although the record contains explanations of past and current 
research projects, we have insufficient information concerning the Petitioner's proposed future 
endeavor with which to make a determination concerning its substantial merit and nation al importance. 
For instance, the Petitioner stated that within two years, he intends to complete the 2018 federal grant 
funded project on~---~---- .... interactions, after which he intends to obtain a research 
faculty position that includes teaching and mentoring. Here, the Petitioner has not identified how 
much time he will spend researching, as opposed to teaching and mentoring. This is significant as we 
determined in Dhanasar that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the '"potential prospective impact" of his work. With respect to the 
Petitioner's teaching and mentoring, we concludethatthe record doesnotestablish by a preponderance 
of the evidence that such activities would impact the field of entomology or the U.S. agricultural 
industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the specific students and university he will serve. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not included sufficient evidence of what specific future research projects 
he intends to engage in within the realm of insect-pathogen-plant interactions or the research programs 
he intends to run once he reaches beyond the five-year mark in his proposed endeavor. Without this 
information, which would inform whether the research would have a broader impact and therefore 
national importance, we are unable to determine whether his endeavor meets the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
As evidence of the substantial merit and national importance of the Petitioner's work, he provided 
evidence of his research publications and that at the time off iling, his work had been cited eleven times. 
4 
While we acknowledge that evidence of the impact his past work has had provides a basis to suggest that 
his future work will have a similar impact, this past research acclaim does not in itself establish the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor. Here, the Petitioner has not identified the specific nature 
of his proposed future research so that we might determine its possible impact, nor has he identified how 
his future research will be disseminated into the scientific community such that its potential can be 
properly evaluated. 
The Petitioner asserted that being invited to present at conferences is evidence of the impact his work 
has on the field. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's claims that his presentations at conferences 
indicate that his work has impacted the field, the record contains insufficient corroborative evidence 
that his ideas and teachings from these presentations have been implemented such that the broader 
impact of his work is established. The Petitioner's resume references his participation in various 
presentation and conference activities but does not adequately describe his role in those events. We 
do not know, for instance, why merely attending a conference is evidence of his research's impact in 
the field of entomology. Further, the Petitioner has not explained whether being an "invited speaker" 
means that he actually presented or spoke at the conference such that his ideas were disseminated. 
Nor has the Petitioner explained the difference between an oral presentation and a poster presentation. 
In our examination of the record, we note an extensive list of conference and presentation activities 
on the Petitioner resume, but little corroborative evidence to substantiate these activities. In the initial 
filin , the Petitioner provided evidence that he spoke at an I 120171 J 
,.__ _ ____,, __ ....., nnual Meeting inl }3.s well as an Entomology 2017 event in~I --~r 
2017 in~-~ The Petitioner has not provided sufficient background information for either of these 
events and the record does not contain sufficient detail with which to conclude that his work was 
implemented such that a broader impact of his work could be established. On motion, he provided 
evidence that as a doctoral student in 2012, he contributed to theOAnnual Meeting of thel I 
Entomological Society. While his resume suggests that he provided an oral presentation at this event, 
the conference documents themselves do not state how the Petitioner contributed at the event. On 
motion, he also provided evidence that he orally presented at an event iril _I however this event 
occurred inl I 2019, which was after the filing of the petition. In addition, the Petitioner 
claimed that he was invited to speak at al go19 event in China and that when he could not 
attend, presented on his behalf. The conference document indicates, however, thatD 
~-~ 
was the invited speaker. Although we acknowledge the Petitioner's resume and other 
statements, the record does not include sufficient independent corroborative evidence that the 
Petitioner was invited to speak at this event. Moreover, the Petitioner, in fact, did not speak at this 
event. Even if he had, the event occurred after the petition was filed and would not constitute evidence 
in support of his eligibility at the time of filing. 
In his RFE response concerning the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner provided 
additional letters of recommendation in order to establish the substantial merit and national importance 
of the Petitioner's work. However, as previously noted, none of the authors discussed the Petitioner's 
future work or acknowledged his proposed endeavor. Rather, the authors focused solely on the 
Petitioner's past or cunent work. As such, the letters are insufficient to support a finding of eligibility 
under prong one of the Dhanasar framework. Likewise, thel I article, 
USDA research, and Wikipedia printout may support a finding that entomology relating to crop 
protections against pests is an important field; however, this evidence does not establish that the 
5 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor is of substantial merit and national importance. Again, we 
note that in determining national importance, the relevant question is notthe importance of the industry 
or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Id. at 889. A June 20191 I letter evidenced 
a new offer of employment as an Assistant Project Scientist; however, this letter did not include a 
description of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, nor did it indicate whether the Petitioner will only 
engage in research projects assigned to him by the department of entomology. Finally, the Petitioner 
has not explained how this employment might affect his proposed endeavor. 
Overall, the record does not include sufficient information or supporting evidence identifying the 
specific research projects the Petitioner intends to undertake to demonstrate the nature and extent of 
his proposed research, how he will disseminate his research, or how the Petitioner will allocate his 
time given his proposed teaching and mentoring work. In determining whether an individual qualifies 
for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the specific proposed endeavor to determine whether 
(1) it has both substantial merit and national importance and (2) the foreign national is well positioned 
to advance it under the Dhanasar analysis. Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
information regarding his proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that he meets either the first or 
second prong, or that he has established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
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