dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Fluid Mechanics And Heat Transfer

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-S-M-K-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 30,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a fluid mechanics and heat transfer 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). 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 petiti9ner 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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 20 16). 1 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, finding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, but that she had not established that a waiver of a job offer, and thus of 
a labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Petitioner appealed the matter to us, and 
we dismissed the appeal.2 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. The Petitioner initially offered a brief in 
support of the motion contending that she was eligible for a national interest waiver under the 
framework identified in NYSDOT. While the motion was pending, we issued Dhanasar, our 
precedent decision modifying the analytical framework for national interest waivers. We 
subsequently reopened the matter on our own motion and issued a request for evidence (RFE) asking 
the Petitioner to provide proof satisfying the new three-part framework set forth in Dhanasar. In 
response, the Petitioner submits a letter from counsel and additional documentation, asserting that 
she is eligible for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. Upon review, we will 
deny the motion to reconsider. In addition, as the record does not establish eligibility for the 
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. Corum 'r 1998) (NYSD07). 
2 See Matter ofN-S-M-K-, ID# 77881 (AAO Sept. 29, 2016). 
Matter of N-S-M-K-
discretionary national interest waiver under the framework set forth in Dhanasar, the petition will 
remain denied. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a 
motion to reconsider are located at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies 
these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
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) ofthe 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. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Dhanasar 
stated that after EB-2 eligibility has been established, U~CIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a 
national interest waiver when the below prongs are met. 
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. 
2 
.
Matter of N-S-M-K-
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, users 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 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 record indicates that the Petitioner intends to work as a researcher and teacher in the department 
of mechanical and aerospace engineering at In his support letter, 
chair of department of mechanical and aerospace engineering, explained 
that the Petitioner's responsibilities would include teaching three courses per semester, collaborating 
on "fire safety research and interactive education and training," studying properties of 
nano and ferrofluids "such as optical and thermal properties," and "supervising graduate students 
and/or post-doctoral fellows." 
A. Motion to Reconsider Under the NYSDOT Framework 
The Petitioner filed the current motion to reconsider prior to the publication of Dhanasar, 
contending that our appellate decision under the NYSDOT framework was erroneous. In our 
appellate decision, we acknowledged that the Petitioner satisfied the first two prongs of the NYSDOT 
framework but determined she had not met the third prong requiring a petitioner to justify 
projections of future benefit to the national interest by establishing a past history of demonstrable 
achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. ld. at 219, n.6. We found the 
Petitioner had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that she had such a record of 
achievement or that she would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an 
available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. 
3 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 
.
Matter of N-S-M-K-
On motion, the Petitioner asserted that we improperly compared her accomplishments to those of the 
individuals who wrote her letters of support and dismissed the appeal because her qualifications 
were "not as great as those of the senior references." One of the projects through which the 
Petitioner asserted she influenced the field was the 
training module, a web-based training program for While our 
appellate decision discussed the involvement of two of the Petitioner's references with that program, 
our decision was not based on a finding that their accomplishments and qualifications exceeded 
those of the Petitioner . Rather, we found that, although the record indicated the Petitioner may have 
provided support and assistance to the development of it did not support the claimed 
significance of her particular role in the development of the training module or demonstrate that her 
work on that project had influenced the field of fluid mechanics and heat transfer. 4 
The Petitioner further states that the "value of her contributions has been affirmed by her 
collaborators, including and 
and that their letters "should be afforded significant evidentiary weight." Our decision 
addressed 
and thoroughly considered the information offered in these letters. The Petitioner's motion does not 
point to any specific errors in our discussion and analysis of their statements. 
In addition, the Petitioner mentions our analysis of the letters from professor of 
physics and pharmaceutical sciences at and professor of 
biomedical engineering at the indicated that he 
collaborated with the Petitioner "on developing [a] new system of imaging and treating the brain 
tumor by using With regard to their collaboration, stated that 
"society will benefit from this 
research in the future." Similarly , asserted: "[The 
Petitioner ' s] research methodologies and findings could be applied to my work, with the potential to 
yield results to improve biomedical imaging systems or develop new instrumentations. " In 
addressing their comments, our decision stated: 
While and attested to the potential impact of the Petitioner's 
work, they did not offer any examples indicating that her work already has been 
utilized in any thermal systems, has altered diagnostic or treatment protocols for brain 
tumors, has improved biomedical imaging systems, has affected the development of 
new medical instrumentation , or has otherwise influenced the field as a whole. A 
petitioner cannot successfully file a petition under this classification based on the 
expectation of future eligibility. Eligibility must be established at the time· of filing. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12) .... 
4 
For example, we not~d that although the record included various articles about th.at were written or contributed 
to by her references , the Petitione~ was not listed as an author or acknowledged in the articles. In addition, we observed 
that the Petitioner provided a copy of resume listing the copyright 1 
February 20 13) among his research accomplishments , but did not offer intellectual property documentation identifYing 
herself as developer or inventor . See Matter of N-S-M-K- , ID# 77881 at 4-5 . 
4 
.
Matter of N-S-M-K-
The Petitioner contends that'our language in the first sentence of the above paragraph "suggests that 
a standard far stricter than 'some degree of influence' has been applied in this case." Our analysis, 
however, was based on the assertions of and regarding the prospective impact 
of the Petitioner's research aimed at utilizing in medical imaging systems. In 
our decision, we explained why the references' statements were insufficient to demonstrate the 
Petitioner's eligibility at filing by showing that she had a past record of achievement with a degree 
of influence on the field as a whole. 
The arguments the Petitioner offers on motion do not establish that our appellate findings were based 
on an incorrect application of the NYSDOT framework, law, regulation, or USCIS policy, nor does 
the motion demonstrate that our latest decision was erroneous based on the evidence before us at the 
time of the decision. 
B. Eligibility Under the Dhanasar Framework 
As the relevant framework changed while this matter remained pending , we will now consider 
whether the record , including new evidence submitted in response to our RFE, demonstrates the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. As stated previously, she intends to work as a 
researcher and teacher in the department of mechanical and aerospace engineering at In 
response to our RFE, the Petitioner offers a letter from affirming that his institution has 
continued its "collaboration with [her] through our campus" since 2016, and that 
his department wishes 
"to have [her] rejoin our team in the United States 
in the future, specifically in 
a position that would allow her to continue instructing our engineering students and would also 
facilitate her continued research in the areas ofnanofluids and fire safety." 5 
1. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner previously stated her work will focus on behaviors of nanofluids and ferro fluids , and 
fire safety research. She indicated that her "work with ferrofluids has a broad range of potential 
applications that are meritorious for their medical applications and their prospective benefit to the 
national economy." In addition, she asserted that her fire safety research will have an "impact on the 
safety and welfare of across the country." The Petitioner ' s response to our RFE 
maintains that she will continue to perform research in the areas of "fluid mechanics and heat 
I 
transfer. " She contends that her proposed endeavor has "a significant impact on fire safety research 
and has potentially significant implications for ongoing biomedical and bioengineering research. " 
The record includes letters of support and published articles discussing the benefits of these areas of 
research. Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner's proposed work as a fluid mechanics and heat 
transfer researcher has substantial merit. 
5 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for her to have a job offer 
rrom a specific employer. Nevertheless , we will consider information about this prospective position to illustrate the 
capacity in which she intends to work. 
5 
.
Matter of N-S-M-K-
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's work satisfies the national importance requirement, we 
requested evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. In response, the 
Petitioner asserts that her research and collaborations with the 
have a "national impact on the study of fire safety in the United States - as well as on the training 
throughout the country receive." In addition, she contends that her research in the area 
of ferrofluids and nanofluids contributes to "the development of advanced medical treatments, 
therapies, and drug delivery systems." 
We also find the evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed research is of national 
importance. For example, in his latest letter, a senior research scientist at cites 
data from the concermng fatalities in the United States. 
In addition, a professor of mechanical engineering at and the Petitioner's 
Ph.D. advisor, states that her "work with can be very useful not only in 
biomedical engineering devices, but also in medical diagnostics and therapy." He further indicates 
that the proposed research could offer "improvements in medical devices and drug delivery 
technologies" that "have the potential to improve and save the lives of millions of Americans and 
others around the world." In addition; the Petitioner has submitted documentation indicating that the 
benefit of her proposed fluid mechanics, heat transfer, and fire safety 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 
her proposed research, she meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Regarding the Petitioner's proposed teaching duties at we find that they have substantial 
merit. The record, however, does not establish that her course instruction would impact her 
endeavor more broadly, as <;>pposed to being limited to the students at the institution where she 
teaches. Accordingly, without sufficient documentary evidence of their broader impact, the teaching 
activities do not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Similarly, in Dhanasar, we determined 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. !d. at 
893. We note that the Petitioner's RFE response does not maintain that her proposed endeavor is 
teaching. Rather, she specifies that her endeavor is research in the fields of fluid mechanics and heat 
transfer.6 
2. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner's qualifications.7 
The Petitioner submitted documentation of her published work, conference presentations, peer 
6 As the Petitioner's proposed teaching activities as an instructor do not satisfY the "national importance" element of the 
Dhanasar framework's first prong, we will limit the remainder of our analysis to her proposed research. 
7 
Under this prong of Dhanasar, the Petitioner must go beyond showing expertise in her particular field. A petitioner 
"cannot qualifY for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered 
in [her] field of expertise." !d. at 886, n.3. 
6 
.
Matter of N-S-M-K-
review activities, research projects, and academic credentials (including a bachelor's degree, 
master's degree, and Ph.D. in mechanical engineering). She also offered various reference letters 
discussing her research projects at 1 In response to our 
RFE, the Petitioner provided her CV; further research articles and presentations; and emails inviting 
her to publish and present her work, and to perform peer review. Her evidence also included copies 
of nine test reports (2008-2011), a 
technical report ( 2009), information about and its 
and updated letters of support from previous references. As 
discussed below, we find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated a record of success or progress in her 
field, or a degree of interest in her work from relevant parties, that rises to the level of rendering her 
well positioned to advance her proposed research endeavor. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The Petitioner maintains that her education, knowledge, and skills in fluid mechanics and heat 
transfer; research background at publications; and presentations show that she is well 
positioned to advance the study of fire safety, nanofluids, and ferrofluids. The record contains letters 
from engineering faculty members discussing her fire research activities, which has included 
work on projects funded by the and on the 
web-based training program. For example, stated that she "assisted the 
team to successfully complete three projects" funded by the 
program. In addition, explained that the Petitioner's "ability to 
statistically analyze and interpret the data helped the team to scientifically validate the efficacy of 
' which "is currently in beta-testing with several fire departments." Our RFE requested 
additional information and evidence to demonstrate her specific roles and contributions to the 
program and grant projects. 
In letters responding to our RFE, the Petitioner's colleagues discuss her participation in the 
fire safety projects. For instance, indicates that when she was a graduate student in 
February 2008, the Petitioner "participated in, and was a leading member of, the research team 
during ,JO 
Similarly, asserts that the Petitioner "lead the research team during 
conducted on ... " For perspective on the Petitioner's role in this project, the 
RFE response includes a technical report entitled ' 
' 11 The "Acknowledgements" section of the 
8 
The record reflects that the Petitioner performed graduate and postdoctoral research at from June 2008 to 
January 2014. In addition, from January 2014 until July 2014, she was employed as an adjunct professor at 
Subsequently, from July 2014 to January 2015, she worked as a consultant and research and development scientist for 
in New Jersey. In September 2014, she returned to as a visiting assistant professor 
until December 2014. 
9 The Petitioner submits information indicating that became ' 
10 
In his initial letter, stated that the Petitioner "assisted the 
in 2015. 
team during 
11 The authors of the report, and stated: ' 
.
Matter of N-S-M-K-
report lists several organizations and fifty individuals who played a role in the experiments. It 
identifies as "[t]he key organization to making this happen," and mentions for its 
"role in documenting the structure and monitoring the weather and wind conditions during the 
experiments." The third paragraph under "Acknowledgments" states that led 
efforts, and that the principal members of his team included the Petitioner, and 
three others. While the report shows that she was a member of the team that assisted in 
documenting the structure and monitoring the weather and wind conditions, it does not establish her 
role as a substantial contributor to the extent that she should be credited with the success of the 
overall project or any interest that it generated. 
In his letter, notes that the Petitioner recently published an article based on her follow-up 
research relating to the aforementioned experiments. 12 He states that in 2017, she published 
a paper on tactics to create safer conditions for entitled 
in We note that this article, written by 
and the Petitioner, was published well after she filed the Form I:-140 on May 11, 2015.13 The 
Petitioner's RFE response includes additional research articles she coauthored, but they have not yet 
been published or presented. Regardless, the 
record does not include sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that her recent and forthcoming publications have generated positive interest among 
relevant parties or reflect a record of success in her area of research. 
Similarly, the Petitioner offers a 
' 2017 
paper; a 2016 ' 
speaking engagement; and emails from 2016 and 2017 inviting her to publish and present her work, 
and to perform peer 
review, all of which post-date the filing of the Form I-140. While the regulation 
at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ), (12) requires that eligibility be established at the time of filing, we will 
consider the additional post-filing evidence of the Petitioner's accomplishments in evaluating 
whether she meets this second prong. In this case, however, we find the Petitioner has failed to 
establish that these presentations and invitations are reflective of a level of success, or interest in her 
work, that renders her well positioned to advance her proposed research endeavor. 
With regard to development of the module, and contend that the 
Petitioner assisted in conceptualizing and developing the training methodology. 
maintains that the Petitioner's "teaching experience and leadership assisted the group in 
conceptualizing [the] web-based interactive training methodology for He states that 
" The authors further noted that the experiments were conducted by multiple organizations, including 
and and required "the assistance of many individuals and 
cooperation of many organizations to plan and execute." 
12 The RFE response included copies of nine test reports confirming the Petitioner was one of the individuals who 
conducted the experiments, which were conducted jointly by the and the from May 2008 until October 
2011. 
13 The record does not indicate that the Petitioner published any previous fire safety research studies. 
8 
.
Matter of N-S-M-K-
she "completed critical statistical analysis and data interpretation to support development of the 
module." As noted in our appellate decision, while the record includes various articles about 
that were written or contributed to by and they do not mention the 
Petitioner or discuss her specific contributions to corroborate the references' claims 
that she 
conceptualizedor developed the training methodology. Although the Petitioner's colleagues 
at contend that she "helped the team to scientifically validate the efficacy of ' the 
record does not indicate that she has contributed to their published research articles relating to the 
project. For example, and authored an article about m 
entitled' 
The Petitioner is not listed as an author or 
identified anywhere in the acknowledgements section of the aforementioned article, and the record 
does not include any work that she has published regarding her development of the training 
tool.14 
While the Petitioner may have provided support and assistance to the projects and the 
training tool, the record does not support the claimed significance of her role in these 
endeavors. Instead, the record reflects her participation as a graduate student in certain phases of the 
research process (such as monitoring experimental conditions, testing, and performing statistical 
analysis and data interpretation). She has not shown, however, that this work with the 
amounts to a record of success in her field, that her contributions generated interest among relevant 
parties, or that this research experience otherwise renders her well positioned to advance her 
proposed endeavor. 
In addition to her fire safety research, several references mentioned the Petitioner's nanofluids and 
ferrofluids research at For instance, professor of physics at stated 
that the Petitioner's "research articles are excellent and make important contributions to the 
technically · important field of ferrofluids," but did not further describe these contributions. 
Furthermore, associate professor of mathematics at asserted that the 
Petitioner "has-extended theoretical models of ferrofluids and made measurements of their essential 
properties" and that her work "has important applications for the construction of sensors." In his 
initial letter, indicated that the Petitioner's research findings "have advanced 
understanding of enhancement in heat transfer rate of ferrofluids that can be used in thermal 
systems." The letters from and do not, however, provide specific 
examples of how the Petitioner 's findings have generated positive interest among relevant parties, 
have affected sensor construction methodologies, have been utilized in the development of thermal 
systems, or otherwise reflect a record of success in this area of research. 
In response to our RFE, points to the Petitioner's articles about ferro fluids in 
and He attests that her 
studies "advanced our field's comprehensive knowledge regarding the process of assembling 
14 In hi's initial letter, 
identifies 
noted that is "a registered copyrighted computer program, " but the record 
rather than the Petitioner , as the copyright author. 
9 
.
Matter of N-S-M-K-
particles in response to the magnetic field for a weak dipolar ferrofluid by means of concentration 
and field strength." Similarly, contends that the Petitioner's findings "offer a substantial 
improvement towards fundamental understanding of colloidal magnetic fluids' behavior." In 
addition, notes that the Petitioner's work adds "a new set of data about the in-field 
behavior of ferrofluids to the existing body of literature" and "indicates an integration of promising 
efforts to develop a fundamental understanding offerrofluids and their characterization." 
While we recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way in 
order to be accepted for publication, funding, or academic credit, not every individual who has 
performed original research will be found to be well positioned to advance her proposed research. 
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. 
In this case, the record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted and published some research 
during her career at She has not shown, however, that her work has been frequently cited by 
independent researchers or otherwise served as an impetus for progress in the field, that it has 
affected engineering practices, or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the broader 
research community. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the Petitioner's work otherwise 
constitutes a record of success in her area of research. As the record is insufficient to demonstrate 
that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor, she has not established that 
she satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
3. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
The Petitioner states that her "continued work in the United States in the field of fluid mechanics and 
heat transfer warrants approval." She asserts that "it is highly unlikely that other workers in the United 
States would share [her] unique combination of skills, and . . . that any such labor market could be 
effectively tested through the labor certification process." The Petitioner also contends that her research 
in two areas, fluid mechanics and heat transfer, "is analogous to a combination of jobs that would 
render labor certification highly impractical in her case" and that it would be difficult "to articulate 
the requirements of such a position in a labor certification." 16 
While some of the Petitioner's knowledge and experience may exceed the minimum requirements for 
her occupation and therefore could not be easily articulated on an application for labor certification, 
she has not demonstrated, as claimed, that she presents benefits to the United States through her 
proposed endeavor that outweigh those inherent in the labor certification process. The Petitioner has 
not shown an urgent national interest in her research; nor has she demonstrated that she offers 
15 
For instance, her CV listed six publications she authored while at from 2006 until the petition's filing date in 
May 2015. · 
16 
The labor certification process is designed to certify that a foreign worker will not displace nor adversely affect the 
wages and working conditions of U.S. workers who are similarly employed. Job requirements must adhere to what is 
customarily required for the occupation in the United States and may not be tailored to the foreign worker's 
qualifications or unduly restrictive, unless adequately documented as arising from operational necessity. 
10 
Matter of N-S-M-K-
contributions of such value that, over all, they would benefit the nation even if other qualified U.S. 
workers were available. In sum, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 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 Petitioner therefore has not established that she meets the third prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated error in our previous decision. Further, she has not established 
that she meets the framework set forth in Dhanasar to show eligibility for the discretionary national 
interest waiver, nor do we find that an exercise of discretion would be warranted in this instance .. 
ORDER: The motion is denied and the petition remains denied. 
Cite as Matter ofN-S-M-K-, ID# 262667 (AAO May 30, 2017) 
1 1