dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mathematics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19956513 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 3, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a mathematics lecturer and 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) . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer , and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and a brief asserting that he is eligible for a 
national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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. 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 ofjob 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," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 1, 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. 2 
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. 
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. 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 To establish that it would be in the national interest to waive the job offer requirement, a petitioner must go beyond 
showing their expertise in a particular field. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a 
degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute. individuals of 
exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of 
their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given petitioner seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 
or as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, that individual cannot qualify for a waiver just by 
demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in their field of expertise. See 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 886 n.3. 
2 
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, USCIS 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 Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 4 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 the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
Regarding his claim of eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong, the Petitioner indicated that he intends 
to continue working "as a full-time Lecturer of Mathematics in the Department of Mathematics at 
.__ _____ __.University,.__ ______ ___,"5 He further stated: "Atl I I provide classroom 
instruction and consulting to the students, and conduct academic research. Besides my own academic 
research, I also currently have students conducting research work under my supervision." 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) asking the Petitioner to provide further information 
and evidence regarding his proposed endeavor in the United States. He was informed that he should 
submit a "detailed description of the proposed endeavor and why it is of national importance." The 
Petitioner was also asked to present documentary evidence that establishes his proposed endeavor's 
national importance. 6 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner stated: "I study.__ ___________ __. 
loosely speaking. I study I [with computer numerical simulations. I work on the accuracy, 
efficiency, and parallelization of numerical methods." He also described three of his previous research 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Petitioner received a Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University! I in August 2007. 
5 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we will consider information about his current position to illustrate the capacity in which 
he intends to work in order to detennine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
6 Furthermore, the Director noted that the evidence relating to the Petitioner's proposed classroom instruction work was 
insufficient to show that his undertaking has broader implications for his field, as opposed to being limited to his students 
a~ IWhile the Petitioner's academic work as a lecturer has merit, the record does not demonstrate that his 
instructional activities offer benefits that extend beyond his university to impact the field of applied mathematics more 
broadly. Likewise, 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. Id. at 893. 
3 
projects and discussed his intentions for building upon that work. He explained that he plans to 
develop numerical simulations to understand the d namics of in a I I 
devise a boundary integral method to compute the ,__ ___ ____, interaction ot1 !particles, 
and create a graphics processing unit implementation of his algorithm fon I 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated 
the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
submitted supporting evidence showing "the broader implications of your future endeavor within your 
field or how much research will be its focus." Additionally, the Director indicated that without sufficient 
documentation indicating "the broader impact of [the Petitioner's] future research or instructional work 
upon the field of mathematics ofLJresearch," he had "not established the potential prospective impact 
of [his] proposed work as a lecturer or researcher." The Director further noted that the Petitioner had not 
shown that the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor "has national or global 
implications" within the field. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that his response to the RFE "described the three research projects I am 
currently engaged in. Given that my past publications are consistently cited by my peers across the 
country - citation report attached, it can be anticipated that publications resulting from my current 
endeavors will receive similar interests from researchers in my field." He further contends that "citations 
by scholars across the United States constitute national importance." The Petitioner's citation record in 
mathematics research relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific 
research endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar' s first prong. 7 
With the appeal, the Petitioner submits an April 2021 letter from the Provost and Vice President for 
Academic Affairs at I I offering the Petitioner "a one-year appointment as Lecturer in 
Mathematics," but there is no discussion relating to his proposed research projects. In addition, the 
Petitioner provides a July 2021 letter from the Chair of the Mathematics Department atl I 
indicating that the Petitioner's appointment involves both teaching and research. This letter further 
states that the Mathematics Department plans to "endorse [the Petitioner's] future bids for research 
grants to government agencies, so that, if awarded, he can serve in the role of a principal investigator," 
but it does not identify his specific research projects or discuss their national importance under the 
Dhanasar framework. 
The record includes additional letters of support from scholars at I I University, University D 
I 11 I Institute of Technology, and University! I These letters focus 
on the Petitioner's past research efforts rather than the national importance of the three projects that 
the Petitioner proposes to undertake. 
7 While citations show that a researcher's work has attracted the attention of those who have cited to his findings, they do 
not constitute evidence that his proposed research projects have national imp01tance. For example, in Dhanasar, the 
petitioner presented "probative expert letters from individuals holding senior positions in academia, government, and 
industry that describe the importance of hypersonic propulsion research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests. He also 
provided media articles and other evidence documenting the interest of the House Committee on Armed Services in the 
development of hypersonic technologies and discussing the potential significance of U.S. advances in this area ofresearch 
and development. The letters and the media articles discuss ... the strategic importance of U.S. advancement in researching 
and developing these technologies." Id. at 892. 
4 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec . at 889. In Dhanasar , we 
further 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 
implication s 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. 
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. Although the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to continue his applied math ematic s research , he has not 
offered sufficient information and evidence to demon strate that the prospecti ve impact of his propo sed 
endeavor rises to the level of nation al importance. 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. Id. at 893. Here, we conclude the record does not show that the 
Petitioner 's proposed endeavor stands to impac t U.S . technological intere sts or the field of applied 
math ematics more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore , the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S . workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. 
regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's research projects would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner 's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first 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. 
5