dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Industrial Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 23, 2024 In Re: 33940769 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an industrial engineer researcher, 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 
section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(national interest waiver), concluding 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 pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter a/Christa 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. 
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 of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. 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: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• 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 established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 
classification as an advanced degree professional. The remaining issues on appeal are whether the 
Petitioner has established the national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first 
prong, that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under the second prong, and that 
on balance waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States under the third prong. 
For the reasons discussed below, we withdraw the Director's finding that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework but agree that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated he is 
well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
In 2020, the Petitioner completed his master of science in industrial engineering program in Iran. In 
2022 he began working as a graduate research assistant at the~-------~where he is 
currently pursuing his doctorate degree. According to his personal statement, his current research 
involves analyzing the effectiveness of transportation network resiliency strategies and the results of 
his work are expected to be published. 
In his national interest waiver petition, the Petitioner identified his occupation as industrial engineer, 
and his proposed job title as postdoctoral researcher. The Petitioner stated his proposed endeavor is 
to develop state of the art solutions for improving supply chain conceptual models to ensure 
sustainable supply chains for a wide variety of industries. In response to the Director's Request for 
Evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an updated statement detailing his proposed endeavor as 
using his research to: 
• Assess the current state of transportation network resiliency in the face of natural disasters; 
• Work on creating advanced models that can accurately predict the impact of various types of 
natural disasters on transportation networks, forecast disruptions, and assist proactive 
planning and decision-making for transportation authorities; and 
• Pilot new and innovative resilience strategies to maintain operational continuity during crises. 
The Petitioner submitted documents in support of his national waiver petition, which included: a 
personal statement and updated personal statement; documents relating to his academic record; 
recommendation letters; an offer letter; peer-reviewed articles; notable citations to his articles; citation 
data; articles on how to interpret citation records; and reports on optimizing, reshaping, and effects of 
disruptions of supply chain transportation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, a list identifying 
industrial engineering as a Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics (STEM) degree, and a 
government memorandum on research and development priorities. 
2 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor 
but did not establish its national importance. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we focus on "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake" and consider its potential prospective 
impact. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. We also 
stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be 
understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was not nationally important because the 
Petitioner had not established it had significant potential to employ U.S. workers or had other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area. However, as 
discussed above, these are not the only factors that may establish the national importance of a proposed 
endeavor. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor, which falls within aSTEM field, involves researching to improve 
the nation's supply chain transportation. The Petitioner cites to the USCIS policy manual and submits 
a White House Memorandum on Research and Development Priorities for fiscal year 2024 
documenting the government's interest in prioritizing research and development investments that 
support supply chain resilience. He also submitted in the record below reports discussing the economic 
effects of disruptions and optimizations of supply chain transportation and the potential significance 
of U.S. advances in this area of research and development. USCIS recognizes the importance of 
progress in STEM fields and the essential role of persons with advanced STEM degrees in fostering 
this progress, especially in STEM areas important to U.S. competitiveness. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. The Petitioner has demonstrated that 
his specific endeavor of improving supply chain transportation through research aligns with the White 
House's priority of improving technology relevant to supply chain resilience and would have national 
implications within the field. Furthermore, the Petitioner has submitted documentation indicating that 
the benefit of his proposed research has broader implications for the field, as the results would be 
disseminated to others in the field through scientific journals and conferences. Looking at the evidence 
in its totality, the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. We therefore withdraw the Director's determination 
on national importance and conclude that by establishing the substantive merit and national importance 
of his proposed endeavor, he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
B. Well-positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second Dhanasar prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. Under this prong, to determine whether petitioners 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 
3 
actIvItIes; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential 
customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Id. 
The Director determined the Petitioner had not established his presented work served as an impetus 
for progress in the field or generated positive discourse in the broader field of industrial engineering 
to constitute a record of success or progress in his area of endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner claims 
that the Director improperly factored in the influence of the Petitioner's work in determining he was 
not well-positioned when Dhanasar does not require the Petitioner to demonstrate influence in the 
field, and therefore held the Petitioner to ahigher evidentiary standard by finding he has not influenced 
his field. He further asserts that the Director did not otherwise properly review and weigh all the 
evidence in analyzing whether he satisfied the second Dhanasar prong, specifically the evidence 
submitted to address the concerns in the Director's Request for Evidence (RFE). 
The Director did not improperly hold the Petitioner to a heightened evidentiary standard by assessing 
his influence in his field in determining whether he is well-positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor. While we agree that Dhanasar did not specifically mandate a showing of influence as a 
factor to consider whether a petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, the 
decision also did not limit the factors we may consider. See id. at 890 (identifying factors we consider 
under the second prong as "including, but not limited to"). In fact, in finding that the petitioner in 
Dhanasar was well positioned, we relied on, in part, "the significance of the petitioner's research in 
his field" as corroborated by evidence of peer and government interest in his research and consistent 
government funding on his research projects. Id. at 893. 
Moreover, the Director's assessment of the evidence under Dhanasar 's second prong is also consistent 
with USCIS policy guidance, which identifies evidence of whether the person's work has influenced 
the field of endeavor as relevant evidence that may demonstrate a petitioner is well-positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(1) 
(providing, as guidance, many examples of evidence that may demonstrate aperson is well-positioned 
to advance their proposed endeavor). The Director identified the relevant evidence submitted, 
including in response to the RFE, and sufficiently analyzed the overall record under the applicable 
preponderance of the evidence standard to conclude that the Petitioner is not well-positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his master's degree in industrial engineering and his current work 
as a researcher at the,_________ __,evidence his education, skills, knowledge and record of 
success and thereby establishes that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
Education, skills, knowledge, and record of success are some factors among many that may contribute 
to a finding that a petitioner is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. Although the Petitioner asserts that his advanced degree in a STEM 
field is an "especially positive factor," it is not a sufficient basis to determine that he is well positioned 
to advance his proposed endeavor. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(2) 
(providing, as guidance, that we look to a variety of factors and education is merely one among many 
that may contribute to whether an individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor). 
Further, while we acknowledge that the Petitioner is currently researching the effectiveness of 
transportation network resiliency strategies, and has conducted, published, and presented research 
4 
while obtaining his master's degree and in obtaining his doctorate, he has not demonstrated a record 
of success in similar efforts with respect to his research, as we discuss below. 
The Petitioner also argues the Director did not give sufficient weight to his publications and citation 
history and requests we review the notable citations to his work that he summarized in his RFE 
response and contained in his advisory opinion letters. The Petitioner asserts that being published in 
highly cited journals and being cited by other researchers demonstrate his success and interest in his 
work. 
In the record below, the Petitioner provided a list of ten peer-reviewed articles he first-authored and 
co-authored. Of those listed, he stated four of the articles had high citation rates for the industry 
according to his Google Scholar profile and Clarivate Analytics (CA). He was first author in two of 
the four, published in 2019 with 32 citations and in 2022 with 35 citations respectively. The other two 
articles, on which he was the fourth author, were published in 2021 with 41 citations and in 2023 with 
three citations respectively. The Petitioner did not specify how many citations for each of these 
individual articles were self-citations by him or his coauthors. The Petitioner also submitted data from 
CA providing baseline citation rates and percentiles by year of publication for the engineering field 
and claimed his citations from his articles ranked among the top 20%. However, 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." Furthermore, the citation information concerns 
the larger field of engineering and compares his citation frequency in industrial engineering to that of 
the larger field. While industrial engineering is part of the field of engineering, the Petitioner does not 
submit sufficient evidence confirming that information extrapolated from the larger field applies 
equally to each subfield within engineering, including industrial engineering. The Petitioner also 
claimed that the "OpenAlex" data he submitted reflects that he is among the top 0.12% of researchers 
in the field in terms of citation impact. However, the evidence does not indicate the source of the data 
as "OpenAlex," and the Petitioner did not show how "OpenAlex" calculates the percentile figures. 
Moreover, citation frequency, which may include self-citations, is quantitative in nature and does not 
reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis. The Petitioner has therefore 
not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his four published articles, in and of 
themselves, reflect a record of success in similar efforts to meet Dhanasar's second prong. 
The Petitioner also submitted recommendation and advisory opinion letters,2 which described the 
Petitioner's research, the studies that cited to or acknowledged the Petitioner's findings, and the 
findings of those studies and claimed that his work has immensely benefitted academia and the 
industry. However, the authors of these letters do not provide sufficient detail explaining the 
significance of the Petitioner's past research, or how it has affected the field or industry to demonstrate 
a history of accomplishment and success and progress towards achieving his proposed endeavor. For 
example, one of the authors claimed the Petitioner's model for managing home healthcare temporal 
dependencies and uncertainties advanced home healthcare logistics but did not explain how it did so 
or the broader implications of the Petitioner's model in his field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(1) (providing, as guidance, examples of evidence that may establish that a 
petitioner is well-positioned, including letters from experts in the person's field, describing their past 
2 While we do not discuss each of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
achievement and providing specific examples of how they are well positioned to advance the person's 
endeavor, and evidence demonstrating how the person's work is being used by others, such as 
contracts with companies to use the person's products, patents or licenses for innovations the person 
developed). 
In his response to the RFE, the Petitioner discussed about 15 published articles by others citing his 
work in the record below, claiming the researchers followed his methodology, were influenced by his 
research, incorporated his research, credited him for his strategies, acknowledged his research, gleaned 
critical insights from his work, and were inspired by his research. As a result, he claimed his research 
is leading to other breakthroughs in the field and advancing industrial engineering. The Petitioner 
provided only excerpts of the articles, which we have reviewed. The Petitioner emphasized two 
studies, claiming one held his algorithms up as a stellar example. However, the author of the study 
briefly noted in the article that while the transportation models used by the Petitioner can lead to "a 
more effective solution," the models were not time efficient. The Petitioner highlighted a second 
article which cited three of his published articles and claimed this demonstrates he is a pioneer in the 
industrial engineering field. However, this study only noted the existence of the Petitioner's findings 
in discussing the findings of various studies and did not discuss the broader impact of the Petitioner's 
research. The remaining excerpts noted one of Petitioner's studies provided "good results," another 
stated one of his studies provided good results for small sized instances. Other articles noted the 
Petitioner's work in a string with others and remarked on the type of method used by the Petitioner as 
compared to other researchers but with no further analysis of whether his methodology was adopted 
by the author or deemed as successful. The Petitioner has therefore not shown that his work and 
research establish a record or success beyond having been referenced in published works. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(0)(1) (providing, as guidance, examples of 
establishing a petitioner is well-positioned, including excerpts of published articles showing positive 
discourse around, or adoption of, the person's work). 
The Petitioner further asserts his personal statements represent his model plan for his proposed 
endeavor. According to the statements, the Petitioner will work on his proposed endeavor while 
pursuing his doctorate degree, then continue as a postdoctoral researcher at his current university. We 
acknowledge an offer letter, dated January 2024, by the director of the Data Science and Analytics 
Institute at the~-------~ proposing to hire the Petitioner as a postdoctoral researcher 
in August 2026, upon the Petitioner's expected graduation with his doctorate degree. However, neither 
the offer letter nor the Petitioner's personal statements explain how the Petitioner's expected duties 
relate to his proposed endeavor such that the offer evidences he is well-positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner's evidence also does not demonstrate that he has generated interest among potential 
customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals in his proposed endeavor involving 
supply chain transportation. In Dhanasar, we noted that the petitioner had conducted research and 
postgraduate research that he sought to continue as his proposed endeavor and that he had developed 
a validated computational model and a novel numerical method for calculating data relevant to his 
proposed endeavor. Id. at 891. We also discussed the significance of the petitioner's research in his 
field, which was corroborated by evidence of sustained peer and government interest in his research, 
as well as by consistent government funding of the petitioner's research projects. We factored this in 
determining the Petitioner was positioned well to continue to advance his proposed 
6 
endeavor. Id. at 893. Here, as discussed above, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor entails researching 
transportation systems to create advanced models predicting disruptions in supply chain 
transportation, and to pilot resilience strategies. We acknowledge some of the Petitioner's published 
research involved research on transportation systems. However, the Petitioner has not provided 
evidence that he himself previously received funding for his research or has secured funding to 
continue pursuing his specific proposed endeavor in the future. The Petitioner asserts that his advisory 
letters evidence that he has generated interest in his work by the authors of the letters. However, none 
of the authors mentioned their or their academic institutions' interest in supporting or funding the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The Petitioner also states that the citations to his work are from 
researchers all over the globe, who have taken an interest to his work. However, he has not 
demonstrated that this interest is asustained one or has resulted in investment to advance his proposed 
endeavor. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(1) (providing, as guidance, 
examples of establishing a petitioner is well-positioned, including investment from U.S. investors in 
his proposed endeavor, or awards or grants or other indications of relevant non-monetary support from 
federal, state, or local government entities with expertise in economic development, research and 
development, or job creation). 
The evidence indicates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research while 
obtaining his master's degree and in currently pursuing his doctorate. 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 
potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals supports such a finding. 
Id. at 890. Based on our de nova review, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner 
is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, and the Petitioner has not established that he 
satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
C. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial 
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. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884. However, as the Petitioner has not established that he meets the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not shown that he is eligible for and otherwise 
merits a national interest waiver, and we therefore reserve the Petitioner's arguments with respect to 
this issue. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to 
make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also 
Matter of L-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). 
7 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that he is eligible for and otherwise merits a national interest waiver of 
that classification's job offer requirement. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8