dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mems Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8585527 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 10, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) 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 approved the immigrant petition, but subsequently issued a 
notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) and later revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had approved the petition in error . Specifically, the 
Director determined that although the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree, 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 documentation 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 nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Secretary of Homeland Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient 
cause, revoke the approval of any petition .... " Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1155. By 
regulation this revocation authority is delegated to any USCIS officer who is authorized to approve an 
immigrant visa petition. 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(a). USCIS must give the petitioner notice of its intent to 
revoke the prior approval of the petition and the opportunity to submit evidence in opposition thereto , 
before proceeding with written notice of revocation. See 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b) and (c). The Board of 
Immigration Appeals has discussed revocations on notice as follows : 
[A] notice of intention to revoke a visa petition is properly issued for "good and 
sufficient cause" where the evidence of record at the time the notice is issued, if 
unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial of the visa petition based upon the 
petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The decision to revoke will be 
sustained where the evidence of record at the time the decision is rendered, including 
any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of 
intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 1 
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).2 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 3, 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 
1 Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) ( citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1987)). Upon the 
proper issuance of a notice of intent to revoke for good and sufficient cause, the petitioner bears the burden of proving 
eligibility the requested immigration benefit. Id. at 589. 
2 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
3 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 
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 
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. 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 5 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 workin as a ostdoctoral research associate in the Department 
of Electrical and Computer Engineering at~-~-.----------,.---~ His responsibilities 
included "design, fabrication and characterization of~-------~ devices forl I 
applications." In response to the Director's NOIR, the Petitioner provided a June 2019 letter from 
I !indicating that he joined the company in January 2018 as a Foundry MEMS Research 
and Development Engineer. This letter farther stated that he has been "working on the development of 
cutting-edge MEMS fabrication technologies for the development of the next generation of MEMS 
sensors." In Julr 2019, the Petitoner began serving as a Senior Device Engineer atl I 
I _ His work for this company involves maximixing its "MEMSI !performance 
4 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
5 The Petitioner received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University o~~------~I in August 2015. 
3 
as required byl I by, for instance, increasing the._l __ _____.I quality factor using both novel device 
geometries as well as advanced fabrication techniques." 6 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicated that he intends to continue his work "involving the design, fabrication, 
characterization, and optimization of MEMS devices." He asserted that his proposed research is aimed 
at the development of next-generation MEMSI I The Petitioner farther 
explained that l I address critical! ~equirements for devices wherel I 
must coexist to enable high speed operation. Such applications includd I 
I I 
In the decision revoking the approval of the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had 
not demonstrated the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Director 
stated that the Petitioner had not submitted supporting evidence demonstrating that his "proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit." Additionally, the Director concluded that the record lacked information 
relating to the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's endeavor aimed at researching MEMS□ 
technologies. 
With respect to the endeavor's substantial merit, the Petitioner submitted letters of slpport tscussing the 
merit of his proposed research. For exampleJ I professor at asserted that 
"MEMS have been identified as one of the most significant emerging technologies of this century. They 
are widely utilized in a variety of domains, including automotive, healthcare, electronics, and oil and gas 
industries, which indicates that this topic is critical to the scientific advancement of the United States." 
The record also includes information from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 
(DARPA) and Sandia National Laboratories discussing the value of MEMS to our country's national 
security. The letters of support and other corroborating evidence in the record are sufficient to 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed research aimed at advancing MEMS technologies has 
substantial merit. 
To satisfy the national importance requirement, the Petitioner must demonstrate the "potential 
prospective impact" of his work. As evidence that the benefit of his proposed research has broader 
implications in the field, the Petitioner submitted letters from several electrical engineering professors 
discussing the commercial benefits associated with his research aimed at the design, fabrication, 
characterization, and optimization of MEMS devices. In addition, he presented information about the 
advantages associated with improvements inOtechnologies, as well as the applicability and impact 
of MEMS research to industry "sectors such as telecommunications, consumer electronics, 
transportation, building automation and healthcare." Furthermore, the Petitioner has submitted 
documentation indicating that the benefit of his proposed research has broader implications for the 
field, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through scientific journals and conferences. 
As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed 
6 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 research positions 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. 
4 
research, we conclude that he meets the fust prong of the Dhanasar framework and withdraw the 
Director's determination on this issue . 
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 
presentations, and peer review activity. He also offered evidence of articles that cited to his published 
work, and letters of support discussing his graduate and postdoctoral research. For example, the record 
contains a November 2016 letter of support fro~ !Founder and Chief 
Technology Officer ofl I (a defunct company that ceased operations in 2017), stating 
that his company utilized "anl !detection technique developed by [the Petitioner] in 
our.__ __________ __, meters." 7 The Director concluded that the Petitioner's published 
work, citation evidence, development o~ Is I I detection technique, and letters 
of support were not sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director erred in questiloning Te credibility of D I Is claims relating to I I and its utilization of a detection technique 
developed by fhe Petitiorr. For example, the Petitioner points out that the Director incorrectly 
concluded that.__ __ ~'s "lease agreement is missing the suite number." 8 Based on the information 
in the lease agreement, the National Science Foundation grant, and~ Is October 2019 
letter , we withdraw the Director's finding questioning the credibility o .__ ____ __,ts claims. 
Additionally, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in not considering evidence that post-dates 
the filing of the petition. Eligibility, however, must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be 
approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter of 
Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981 ), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being 
only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. 
The Petitioner further argues that his research experience, published and presented work, citation 
evidence, recommendation letters from others in the field, commercialization of his MEMS research, 
and peer review service demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance bis proposed endeavor. For 
7L------~L>!..!.I.~=~ as an associate professor arC:J,mj was the Petitioner's Ph.D. advisor. The November 
2016 letter · oJ._ ____ _,_ and was accompanied by a webpage describing the 
company's'.__ ___________ _. detector." In both the NOIR al}d the decision revoking the approval 
of the petition, the Director indicated that in March 2019 "USCIS attempted to accesJ ts website, but was unable 
to access the website to verify the information submitted" because the company's "website did not work." The Director 
also noted that an online search of Better Business Bureau records performed in March 2019 "revealed that a different 
business occupied the address" identified in s letter. The Director concluded that this information cast 
doubt on t~e credibility o....._ ____ _. s claims. In response to the Director's NOIR, the Petitioner provided 
I s lease agreement for the address in question and a National Science F1mdation "stanrard grant" listing the 
company's address. He also submitted an October 2019 letter from( _ xplaining that_ I "went out 
ofbusiness in 2017." 
8 We agree that this conclusion was in error. The lease agreement lists the suite number as "300." 
5 
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 getition several references discussed the Petitioner's research projects at 
I lD University o an Pol technic. 9 For exam le, regarding the Petitioner's 
work involving identification o for robotic applicationsc=J 
.__ _____ ---.,I assistant professor of mechanical engineering at.__ ___ ~University, stated that 
the Petitioner applied "the nonlinear least square method to identify the properties of thel I 
materials, which enabled a more precise identification oft I parameters. [The petitioner] also 
developed an experimental setup, which allowed him to confirm the performance of his model." While 
I I asserted that the Petitioner's "identification scheme eliminates the previous challenges 
and provides a more comprehensive understanding ofl I characteristics," he did not provide 
specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's methodology has been implemented in the robotics 
industry or otherwise constitutes a record of success in the field. 
With respect to the Petitioner's Ph.D. studies at University ofl landC]I I stated 
that the Petitioner "developed a novel platform to obtain mass concentration ofl I 
.__ ____ -.========...:.i=n...:.r...:.e.:..:.al:......:..:ti=m.::..:...e."10 In addition, I I asserted that the Petitioner "took 
advantage o~ I to develop a novel method for measuring~-------~ 
andl I and that this "platform demonstrated up to ten times better sensitivity when 
operating in aqueous solutions." also indicated that he "utilized [the Petitioner's] 
research at my "1-""-' ................ ....__ __ ...,_ __ _., which I founded in 2011," but the record does not show that 
the Petitioner's.__ _____ _. detection technique has been utilized beyond his Ph.D. supervisor's 
company or has otherwise attracted a level of interest in the field that renders him well positioned. 
Additionally,~------~ professor atl I University, asserted that the 
Petitioner "developed and integrated I I mass balances inl I I I impactors, which provided real time information on mass concentration ofl I 
separated by size." 11 I I contends that the Petitioner's work is significant for numerous 
domains, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry," but he did not offer examples of how the 
.-""-LL.U.l......,.,_......,.'-'>.ULJ."'i' a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each o""n~e·~-----------, 
the Petitioner and three others authored a a er on this to ic entitled 
L_ ________________________ ,------,__J (2013). As documentation of 
interest in his work the Petitioner submitted a July 2013 email from.__ ___ __. a product planning manager with 
~--~-----~---- asking the Petitioner for a copy of the aforementioned paper. In two subsequent 
emails t-L-----,1'-------'-jstated tha~ hs looking for sensor solutions to detectl I' 
and requested th:it be an,d "continue the conversations on this issue" and ·'keep in touch." 
11 With regard tci.__ _ _,k letter, the Director's decision stated: "Because the signature on the letter was digitally rendered, 
USCTS cannot consider the content of the letter as credible." As the basis for this detennination, the Director references 
USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Signatures on Paper Applications, Petitions, Requests, and Other 
Documents Filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (Feb. 15, 2018), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/ 
files/USCTS/Laws/Memoranda/2018/2018-02-16-PM-602-0134.1-Signatures-on-Paper-Applications-Petitions-Requests­
and-Other-Documents.pdf This memorandum "provides the current USCTS policy regarding the signature requirement 
for applications, petitions, requests, and other documents that require a signature prior to filing with USCIS." We do not 
interpret this policy to govern reference letters that are submitted as evidence in support of a petition. Accordingly, we 
withdraw the Director's determination on this issue. 
6 
Petitioner's findings have been implemented, utilized, or applauded m the MEMS field or the 
pharmaceutical industry. 
the Petitioner's research involving the sens1t1v1ty enhancement of MEMS!.__ __ ___. 
r'-------,......l'L------------' assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at 
Universit indicated that the Petitioner "effectively demonstrate[ d] the capability of 
.__ ___________________ _.in increasing sensitivity by up to 4 orders of 
ma nitude." also noted that he cited to the Petitioner's findin sin a a er, entitled 
,12 
.__ ___ ~s paper, however, does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from the 40 other 
articles he cited to in his paper. 
With regard to the Petitioner's work on .__ _______ --;:::::====;---r--------____.D 
I lthe Petitioner's postdoctoral research supervisor at I I asserted that the Petitioner 
"successfully developed and fabricated J I as small as 0.0lmm 2, that 
could very well compete with itsl !counterparts in terms of efficiency." I I 
,...u.i.~w.1...-...ii..iu..i..lo.L....1.JLJ.-'IJ.----U.u..._~u.J.J.!w..u..J...._.J..-"1.1..J..U"------"'u..z.._.ll....l.l-. h a new class of I I 
.__---~------~---------" and produced a mathematical model in order to 
maximize.__ _____ ____. coupling and therefore efficiency of the acoustic link. Additionally, he 
developed two novel MEMS fabrication processes for the making oj I .... " I, I did not 
provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has affected the MEM"sl I 
industry, has served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in his field, or otherwise 
represents a record of success or progress rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor. 13 
As it relates to the citation of the Petitioner's work, the record includes December 2016 information 
from Goo2:le Scholar indicatin2: that his three hi2:hest cited articles. entitled I 
t and I /------~------------' '--------------------------' ~---~I' each received 25, 14, and 9 citations, 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 NOIR and in support of the appeal, the Petitioner submitted 
updated Google Scholar lists ( dated June 2019 and October 2019) reflecting an 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 )(1 ). 14 
12 The record includes a copy ofl Is paper in which he references the Petitioner and l's aiticle in 
IEEE Electron Device Letters and three additional papers by different researchers as examples of ways that mechanical 
systems "can be used for the implementation of high performance sensors." 
13 I lalso noted that the Petitioner worked on a research program funded by DARPA, but the record does not 
include a copy of the grant documentation. In Dhanasar, the record established that the petitioner "initiated" or was "the 
primary award contact on several funded grant proposals" and that he was "the onjv listed rer;ircher on many of the 
grants." Id. at 893, n.11. Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather that!.__ __ __,_ was mainly responsible 
for obtaining DARPA funding for their research project. 
14 The record also includes Google Scholar and Scimago rankings listing several of the journals in which the Petitioner has 
published his work. That a publication bears a high ranking or impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall 
7 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided data from Clarivate Analytics regarding baseline citation rates 
and percentiles by year of publication for the engineering research field. The Petitioner claimed that 
three of his papers ranked among "the top 10% most-cited articles published in Engineering" based 
on the number of citations received since their publication. The Petitioner did not indicate whether he 
factored in any self-citations in determining this percentile ranking. In addition, because the Petitioner 
has not shown that the Clarivate Analytics data is contemporaneous with the Petitioner's Google 
Scholar data, he has demonstrated that the former provides a proper analysis of his citation record. 15 
Moreover, 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." 
Additionally, the Petitioner presented an article in Scientometrics written by Lutz Bornmann and 
W emer Marx, entitled "How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences 
meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations." This article presents 
recommendations for "how to evaluate individual researchers in the natural and life sciences" for 
purposes of funding and promotion or hiring decisions. The authors state that "publications which are 
among the 10% most cited publications in their subject area are as a rule called highly cited or 
excellent" and that "the top 10% based excellence indicator" should be given "the highest weight when 
comparing the scientific performance of single researchers." While the authors offer proposed 
methods for bibliometric analysis of research performance, the record does not indicate that their 
methods have been accepted and implemented by the academic community. Regardless, the 
Petitioner's field of electrical engineering does not fall under "the natural and life sciences." 
Moreover, with regard to citation information from Google Scholar, the authors advise against "using 
Google Scholar (GS) as a basis for bibliometric analysis. Several studies have pointed out that GS has 
numerous deficiencies for research evaluation." 
The Petitioner's response to the Director's NOIR included May 2019 information derived from 
"Microsoft Academic" that compares his citation and publication counts to those of other researchers 
in the areas of "Microelectromechanical Systems, Microstructure, Electrical Engineering, Physics, 
Material Science, Thin Film." 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 (May 21, 2019) post-dates the filing of the petition, and therefore 
the Petitioner has not shown that the 243 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 record also includes examples of various articles which cited to the Petitioner's work. 16 For 
instance, he provided an article entitled, .__ ______________________ __. 
citation rate. It does not, however, show the influence of any particular author or otherwise demonstrate how an 
individual's research represents a record of success in the field. 
15 A webpage accompanying the Clarivate Analytics information states that its citation "data is updated six times a year" 
(every two months). 
16 Although we discuss representative sample aiiicles here, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
8 
.__ _____ ~ _________ ____,(Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering), in 
which the authors cited to the Petitioner's paper in Sensors IEEE International Conference. The 
article's authors identified the Petitioner's paper as one of five that "reported specific chemical 
functionalization and/or biological detection on theirl I sensors." This article, 
however, does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from the 40 other papers referenced 
in the article. 
Another article presented by the Petitioner, entitled.__ _________________ __. 
'--------------' (Applied Physics Reviews), cites to the Petitioner's paper in IEEE 
Electron Device Letters. In this review article, the authors referenced the Petitioner's work, stating 
that it "increased the sensitivity of -.__ __________ _, using the I I 
I I This article in Applied Physics Reviews, however, does not differentiate the Petitioner's paper 
from the 383 other papers referenced in the article. 
With respect to the documentation reflectin that the Petitione.i,....u.a.:,_..u..u..ii...u,ted his work at engineering 
conferences such as the 2013 IEEE Con and the 2016 I I 
.__ _____________ ____, Workshop in.__ ____ ....., we note that many professional 
fields regularly hold meetings and conferences to present new work, discuss new findings, and 
network with other professionals. Although presentation of the Petitioner's work indicates that he 
shared his original findings with others, he has not shown that the number of citations received by his 
articles or the level of interest they generated is sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to 
advance his endeavor. 
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 
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 funding from 
government entities such as NASA and AFRL, position him well to continue to advance his proposed 
endeavor of hypersonic technology research." Id. at 893. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner asserts that his research appeared on the cover of Nanotechnology, a 
weekly journal focusing on nanometer-scale ob· ects. He presented th~ I 2014 cover of 
Nanotechnolo which includes his and s a er entitled L I 
.__ _____________________________ __, but the record lacks 
supporting evidence showing the stature of the journal. Furthermore, the December 2016 Google 
Scholar information for their article indicated that it had not received any citations at the time of filing. 
Nor is there supporting evidence showing that their article has otherwise attracted a level of interest 
from others in the field sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong. 
Regarding his peer review activity, the Petitioner provided emails thanking him for reviewing 
manuscripts submitted to IEEE Electron Device Letters, IEEE Sensors Journal, IEEE Journal of 
Microelectromechanical Systems, Journal of Applied Physics, Journal of Mechanics and 
Microengineering, Sensors & Actuators: A. Physical, and Nanotechnology. The Petitioner, however, 
has not demonstrated that his occasional participation in the widespread peer review process represents 
9 
a record of success in his field or that it is otherwise an indication that he is well positioned to advance 
his research endeavor. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research relating 
to his graduate and postdoctoral work, 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 electrical engineering field or that it has 
generated substantial positive discourse in the sensing applications industry. Nor does the evidence 
otherwise show that his work constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing research relating 
to MEMS. As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance 
his proposed research endeavor, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established 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 the impracticality of 
labor certification, his expertise in the field, and the importance of his research. 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 
farther discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. The revocation of the previously approved petition is affirmed for the above 
stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10