dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8958058 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WL Y 24, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a mechanical engineering 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits 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 nova 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). 1 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 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. 
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. 
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 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 T&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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 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. At the 
time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a research associate in the Department of Mechanical and 
Industrial Engineering at c=J. 5 He previously served as doctoral researcher at D from August 
2012 until May 2018. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicated that he intends to continue his research aimed at "the I I of 
I networks of biological organs, real rock reservoirs, and chemical I I in order to 
~e_x_p-lo-r~e the effects of nanoparticlesl ~ in those structures." In addition, he stated that 
his proposed work "will focus on understanding the physics of nanoparticle ____ mechanisms." 
The Petitioner further explained that his proposed research inv)-LL'......_.,.___... __ --,._J behavior of 
nanoparticles in real rock structures," "design and development of to study drug 
~ prior to clinical trials," and "design and development of~-----~efficient chemical 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national 
importance. For example, the record includes a letter~ I chair of the 
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering & I explaining that the Petitioner's 
proposed research seeks to advance "the design and development ofl I devices for 
use in the oil and gas sector." The Petitioner also presented information from the U.S. Energy 
Information Administration relating to the amount of petroleum imported and exported by the United 
States in 2017. In addition, the Petitioner provided documentation indicating that the benefit of his 
proposed research has broader implications, as the results are disseminated to others in the field 
through scientific journals and conferences. As the Petitioner has documented both the substantial 
merit and national importance of his proposed nanoparticlel I mechanism research, he has 
established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. The record includes 
documentation of his curriculum vitae, academic credentials, published articles, conference 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Petitioner received a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from~I -~--------~I in May 2018. 
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 determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
3 
presentations, awards, and research fonding. He also offered evidence of articles that cited to his 
published work, and letters of s1rpport discussing his graduate work under the guidance of □ 
I I andl atC] 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that his education, research experience in his specialty, published 
work, citation evidence, recommendation letters from independent references, awards, and research 
fonding demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. For the reasons 
discussed below, the record supports the Director's determination that the evidence is insufficient to 
demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research under Dhanasar's 
second prong. 
In letters supporting the petition, several references discussed the Petitioner's graduate research 
projects at c=J 6 For example, regarding the Petitioner's work involvin, fabrication and 
characterization of devices, I _ professor at the 
University of h h P i i ner developed "a soft lithography process" and 
"was able to manufacture hi materials in less than a day, a far shorter span 
of time than previously thought necessary." farther asserted that "[a]nother innovation 
in [the Petitioner's] work was his addition o ~--,--,--.,....-----__._,modifiers that enabled users to 
manipulate the water contact angle to adjust the level o .__=-....,.....,-----=-_,exhibited by the material," but 
he did not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has affected production 
methods in thel I manufacturing industry or otherwise constitutes a record of success in 
his field. 
Likewise, I I senior research engineer at I I 
indicated that the Petitioner "has developed a method for producin~ • lmaterial 
that utilized a.__ _____ _, reaction to produce materials that were natively! I" D 
r==]_explained that the Petitioner's approach did not require I !modification because the 
"-c=] modifications nec9ssarv to afhievel I were inherent to the material that was 
produced by this method."l~---~j also claimed that "[t]he practicalit of the Petitioner's work 
has been confirmed in the work of his peers" and offered the exam le o who 
cited to the Petitioner's work in a a er entitled 
'-----~ s paper, however, does not 
distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from the 32 other articles he cited to in his paper. 
With respect to the Petitioner's research relating to microfabrication of micromodels,D 
I I professor at .__ _________ ---r ____ _,_...........,.-·versity, stated that the 
Petitioner developed "a microfabrication method to model usin thirteen different 
layers ofi I features in plastic ~u..=-...1.1.L......,,_,Uo.L.Ll.......,..L..L---- .......... =........,.....,__~ 
the Petitioner "was the first researcher to use the 
I I .. method to fabricate a pseudo====~====:====,....m-ic_r_om_o_d_e_l_re_p_r_e-se_n_t-in-g-th_e ____ __,_, 
I l" but he does not offer examples of how the Petitioner's 
microfabrication method has been implemented, utilized, or applauded in the oil and gas industry. 
6 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 The record includes a copy r-i---....--J's paper in which he references the Petitioner's utilization a~ "al I 
· · paiticipate at a certain stage in thel, • J. Among them, 
'---.--------------,,--------' have been presented by a number ofresearchers." 
4 
I 
Regarding the Petitioner's "overall citation record,"! l professor at the University 
I I indicated that the Petitioner's "work has been cited over twenty times collectively. This 
is above the average for research in an engineering field . . .. " As it relates to the citation of the 
Petitioner's work, the record includes June 2018 information from Google Scholar indicating that his 
three highest cited articles, entitled I 
I" 1 
t'and 'I 
~' each received 20, 3, and 1 citation(s), respectively. The Petitioner does not specify 
how many citations for each of these individual articles were self-citations by him or his coauthors. 
Moreover, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an 
updated Google Scholar list ( dated April 24, 2019) reflecting a moderate increase of citations to his 
individual articles. He did not demonstrate how many of these additional citations occurred in papers 
published prior to or at the time of initial filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided data from Clarivate Analytics regarding baseline citation rates 
and percentiles by year of publication for various research fields, including "Engineeri " 
~ences," and "Materials Science." The Petitioner claimed that his a er coauthored with 
L___J and others, entitled 
~-------------~ ranked among "the top 10% most-cited articles published in 
Engineering in 2013" based on the number of citations it has received (20) since that time. The 
Petitioner did not indicate whether he factored in any self-citations in determining this percentile 
ranking. Nor has he sufficiently explained his choice of the field of "Engineering," as opposed to 
"Materials Science" or "Geosciences," as the basis for comparison. Additionally, the documentation 
from Clarivate Analytics 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." 
The Petitioner's response to the Director's RFE included February 2019 information derived from 
"Microsoft Academic" that com ares his citation and ublication counts to those of other researchers 
in the areas of 
Again, the Petitioner did not indicate 
whether he factored in any self-citations in compiling his percentile rankings from Microsoft 
Academic. Moreover, the "Date of Collection" of the percentile rankings (February 11, 2019) post­
dates the filing of the petition, and therefore the Petitioner has not shown that the 30 Google Scholar 
citations used in the Microsoft Academic percentile calculation occurred in papers published prior to 
or at the time of initial filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Regardless, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of interest 
in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second prong. 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that he has a stronger citation record than Dr. Dhanasar, the 
petitioner in our Dhanasar precedent decision. While we listed Dr. Dhanasar's "publications and 
other published materials that cite his work" among the documents he presented, our determination 
that he was well positioned under the second prong was not based on his citation record. Rather, in 
5 
I 
our precedent decision we found "[t]he petitioner's education, experience, and expertise in his field, 
the significance of his role in research projects, as well as the sustained interest of and fonding from 
government entities such as NASA and AFRL, position him well to continue to advance his proposed 
endeavor of hypersonic techno~esearch." Id. at 893. Further, as it relates to the Petitioner's 
education, while his Ph.D. frorrL_Jrenders him eligible for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, 
he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that 
he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 8 We look to a variety of factors in determining 
whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, and education and citations 
are merely two factors among many that may contribute to such a finding. 
Additionally, the Petitioner asserts that his "research has been fonded by government and industry 
alike." He presented five research papers that he coauthored wit~ lorl I and 
others in which the "Acknowledgements" section noted that their work was supported by the National 
Science Foundation or the Advanced Energy Consortium. These articles, however, do not identify 
who among their authors was primarily responsible for securing the fonding for the research projects. 
In Dhanasar, the record established that the petitioner "initiated" or was "the primary award contact 
on several fonded grant proposals" and that he was "the only listed researcher on many of the grants." 
Id. at 893, n.11. Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than one of his professors 
or coauthors) was mainly responsible for obtaining fonding for their research projects. 
The record also includes a Best Pa er A ward from American Society of Mechanic~ 
,....l..!;..A;:;.::S::.;:;M=E'-'=================,!;...;!;.;fo:::.::r....:t:.!.!h;.:::.e~P-=e:.:c:ti~ti~o:.!.!..:;'ner' s paper, entitled' 
that he coauthored with 
and three others. The Petitioner also resented a Certificate of '-----~ '----------,--.....1......:::..;=..:.:;;::;:.::..::..:..;:........::..:; 
Reco nition from the ASME for his paper, entitled '........,.. _____ _ 
that he coauthored with '--------------------------' .__ _____ _. 
and two others. As previously noted, the June 2018 information from Google Scholar indicated that 
the first paper received only three citations and the second paper received just one citation. While the 
Petitioner provided general information about the ASME and a fact sheet relating to its I I 
I 
O 
..,, _ IAward, he has not sufficiently demonstrated the significance 
or level of distinction of his awards in the field. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during 
his graduate studies ate=] but he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance 
his proposed research. While we recognize that research must add information to the pool of 
knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication, presentation, fonding, 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. The Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently demonstrated that his published and 
presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the mechanical engineering field or that it has 
generated substantial positive discourse in the oil and gas industry. Nor does the evidence otherwise 
8 In Dhanasar, the record established that the petitioner held multiple graduate degrees including ·'two master of science 
degrees, in mechanical engineering and applied physics, as well as a Ph.D. in engineering." Id. at 891. 
6 
show that his work constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing research relating to the 
effects of nanoparticles as I I in biological organs, real rock reservoirs, and chemical 
I 1- As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to 
advance his proposed research endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of 
the Dhanasar framework. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
As explained above, 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. Here, the Petitioner claims that he is eligible for a waiver due to his education, research 
experience and accomplishments, the importance of his field, and the impracticality of labor 
certification. 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 find 
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. 
7