dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Experimental Nuclear Physics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 20, 2024 In Re: 34888383 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner intends to be a research scientist in the field of experimental nuclear physics and 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 that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor or that it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and labor certification. 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 ofChawathe , 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required for the specialty, the non-citizen must possess a U.S. doctorate or a 
foreign equivalent degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver pet1t10ns. 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: 
• 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 determined that the Petitioner is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
Upon de novo review, we agree. Therefore, the sole issue on appeal is whether he is eligible for, and 
merits as a matter of discretion, a national interest waiver. The Director determined that the Petitioner 
demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. 
However, he did not demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor or that on balance, 
waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
We note that the Petitioner earned two Masters of Science degrees, one in physics and another in 
radiation and health physics, is pursuing doctoral studies, and is working as a research assistant at 
I I We acknowledge that the Petitioner won an award for Best Poster 
Presentation at the ._____________ _. has published work and given presentations. 
However, for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first 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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
In his initial filing, the Petitioner failed to provide specific insight as to what he intended to do in the 
field of physics. However, in response to the request for evidence, the Petitioner proposed "to continue 
to study the nuclear structure of atomic nuclei produced through different nuclear reactions, using 
gamma-ray spectroscopy and beta-decay techniques." Moreover, the Petitioner stated, "[ o ]ne of the 
goals of my proposed endeavor is to observe the excited states in nuclei and measure their properties 
like excitation energy, lifetime, and modes of decay with their energies." He farther explained that 
the" ... measured properties of excited states in nuclei determine how and which nuclei are used in 
applications for diagnostic imaging, radiotherapy, forensics, nuclear power, and weapons." 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Comis in concluding 
that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
The Director determined that the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Our review of the Petitioner's submissions highlights the broader benefit and 
implications of the Petitioner's work. The Petitioner's study involves the observation and detection 
of radioactive decay which though harmful, can, with the right energy, be used to diagnose and treat 
cancer. We therefore agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner has demonstrated 
both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider 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. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that he is well positioned to advance his 
endeavor. Following our de novo review, we agree. In support of the petition, the Petitioner presented 
letters from other professionals in his field attesting to his skills and the importance of his past research. 
For example, the letter from Dr..________________ ____,Professor of Physics at the 
'-----------~ wrote in his recommendation letter: "[The Petitioner] has already made a 
significant contribution to the field of Nuclear Physics. His research work on the high spin states of 
Cobalt and Nickel isotopes has expanded what is known about these nuclides in terms of gamma rays 
and energy levels. He shared the results of his work with peers during the summer school where we 
first met, and also during the~-------------~(2023) which brought together 
experts in the field from all over the world. . . . His research discoveries in the Cobalt and Nickel 
isotopes will help in understanding the fundamentals interactions that govern [ matter in] the universe." 
However, we note that the letters are scant and do not provide sufficient examples indicating that the 
Petitioner's work is impactful, or otherwise constitutes a record of success in his field. 
The Petitioner argues that the importance and value of his work may be demonstrated by his new 
2research being included in the I I. On appeal, the Petitioner 
argues that scientists from all over the world rely on thel !database anl they ,rll be using the 
latest scientific information about nickel and cobalt that is available at the because of the 
Petitioner's discoveries. Thus, he proffers, future research relying on his discoveries will use 
information from the I I without necessarily citing his research paper and giving him credit for 
the discovery. However, the Petitioner did not offer supporting evidence to corroborate his assertion 
that that his work would not be credited if used in the future, especially where the I I website 
provides guidance about how to reference the information contained in its database. Additionally, he 
argues that his current citation record is not an accurate reflection of his impact in the field. We note 
that the Petitioner has written or co-written 5 publications from 2022 to 2023, along with other 
researchers. Moreover, the record does not demonstrate that the number of citations received by his 
published articles reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet 
2 The I !collects, evaluates, and disseminates imp01tant nuclear physics data for basic nuclear research and applied 
nuclear technologies. 
3 
Dhanasar 's second prong. While the record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published 
and presented research during his graduate studies and professional career, it has not shown his work 
renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Moreover, while 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 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. Overall, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated that his published and presented work has served to propel the field of experimental 
nuclear physics. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he has received funding under the National 
Science Foundation to conduct his research. In Dhanasar, the record established that the petitioner 
"initiated" or was "the primary award contact on several funded granted proposals" and that he was 
"the only listed researcher on many of the grants." Id. at 893, n.11. However, the record indicates 
that in this case, the grant recipient was.__ ________ __.and the Petitioner is not listed as the 
primary contact. Considering the totality of the evidence, we conclude that the Petitioner is not well 
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under the second prong ofDhanasar. 
C. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial 
The Director determined the record did not demonstrate the proposed endeavor would be beneficial to 
the United States; we agree. The third 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 factors 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890-91. 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 
conclude 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. 
4