dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Organic Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9057733 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 23, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an organic chemistry 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 qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that be 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 of job offer-
(i) National interest waiver .... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 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 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. 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 
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. 
At the time of filin the Petitioner was working as a postdoctoral research associate in the Department 
of Chemistr at University! I. 5 He previously served as an assistant 
professor a..___ _____ __. College in Pakistan from August 2014 until October 2015. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicated that he intends to continue his research aimed at developing efficient routes 
for the "synthesis of , "methodologies for the rapid 
synthesis of~---~molecule collections for high throughput screening" (HTS), and "new 
chemical reactions" involving~-------~ The record supports the Director's determination 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. For example, 
he presented information about the U.S. pharmaceutical industry's drug development work and the 
incidence of cancer worldwide. 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 organic chemistry research, we agree with 
the Director's determination 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, and conference 
presentations. He also offered evidence of articles that cited to his published work, and letters of 
support discussing his past research projects. 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these th7e prongr 
4 The Petitioner received a Ph.D. in Chemistiy from the University o in August 2014. He also presented diplomas 
indicating that he received a Master of Philosophy degree in Applied Chejistry frm University of Engineering and 
Technolog~~-~k2008) and a Master of Science degree in Chemistry from University (2002). 
5 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessaty for him to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we will consider infcnmation 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 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that his education, research experience in organic chemistry, 
published work, citation evidence, recommendation letters from independent references, and inclusion 
of his chemical compounds in the PubChem Open Chemistry Database 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 organic chemistry 
research plrojelts ad I and university ot1 ~ For ex~lple, regaring the Petitioner's work 
involving s as a "system for the study and application of compounds," I I I I associate professor in the Department of Chemistry at University, stated that the 
Petitioner developed a s~stem "based on I I" which "works within a medium that resembles a 
living body." I j asserted that the Petitioner "found that he could control the specific time and 
place of release, which is a dramatic improvement in the study ofl I compounds, including 
drugs," but he does not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's system has been implemented, 
utilized, or applauded by others in the field. I lalso claimed that the Petitioner's work "has 
been influential to his peers" and offered the example of 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 28 other aiiicles he cited to in his 
paper. 7 
With res ect to the Petitioner's research concerning I I 
L...-;,----.----------------''"I I professor of medicinal chemistry 
at.__ _ _, indicated that the Petitioner, "through a clever recognition of the properties of a family of 
compounds thad I devised a route to make compounds that could serve as efficient drug 
carriers." Whilel I asse1ied that the Petitioner's research paper on the subject "is destined 
to be a new standard in this field," he did not explain how the Petitioner's findings have already 
affected drug development processes or otherwise constitute a record of success in his field. 
In addition! I professor atl ~niversity I I, stated 
that the Petitioner has collaborated with his research group at I Fin developing a tool box of 
.__ ______________ ___. for dopamine, serotonin, and other receptors." I.__ ____ _. 
asserted that the Petitioner devised "a method of synthesizing! I in large quantities" and 
that this work "made conducting our experiments easier and more efficient," but he did not provide 
specific examples indicating that the co~pounds developed by the Petitioner have impacted the 
pharmaceutical industry, have served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in his 
field, or otherwise represent a record of success or progress rendering him well positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor. 
Furthe1more,I I professor of medicinal chemistiy at University oQin Italy, 
stated that the Petitioner's work "has helped establish thel I molecule synthesis method." 
6 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 The record includes a copy ot1 Is paper in which he cites to the Petitioner's work as one of six examples for which 
I !reaction was reported "as a practical synthetic method in various areas of organic chemistry." 
4 
!indicated that the Petitioner "synthesized several types of I 1 I 
~s-c-af_fo_l_d~s using the I !approach," but the record does not show that the Petitioner's I I 
method has affected the pharmaceutical industry or otherwise reflects a record of success in the organic 
chemistry field. 
LikewiseJ [ associate professor in the Department of Chemistry atOUniversity, 
indicated that the Petitioner "has developed'---~----~---' reaction strategies for the 
synthesis orl lthat are streamlined and more efficient than previous methods." I I 
asserted that the Petitioner's "research onl !synthesis methodology has been influential to the 
field of chemistry, as citations to his publications attest." As it relates to the citation of the Petitioner's 
work, the record includes July 2018 information from Google Scholar indicating that his five highest 
cited articles in Journal o_f Organic ChemistJy (2015), Organic Letters (2013), ACS Combinatorial 
Science (2011 ), Journal o_f the American Chemical Society (2017), and Chemical Communications 
(2011) each received 11, 10, 9, 5, and 3 citations, respectively. The Petitioner does not specify how 
many citations for each of these individual articles were self-citations by him or his coauthors. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided October 201 7 data from Clarivate Analytics regarding baseline 
citation rates and percentiles by year of publication for various research fields, including "Chemistry." 
This 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 
Clarivate Analytics citation data is from October 2017, and therefore does not capture citations that 
occurred after 2017, while the Petitioner's Google Scholar citation report is dated July 2018. 8 Because 
the Clarivate Analytics data is not contemporaneous with the Petitioner's Google Scholar data, he has 
not shown that the former provides a proper analysis of his citation record. Regardless, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his articles reflects a level of interest in 
his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second prong. 
The Petitioner maintains 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. Moreover, while the Petitioner holds the same number 
of graduate degrees as Dr. Dhanasar and this level of education renders him eligible for the underlying 
EB-2 visa classification, he has not shown that his academic accomplishments and citations by 
themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
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. 
8 A webpage accompanying the Claiivate Analytics information states that its citation "data is updated six times a year" 
(every two months). 
5 
Additionally, while the Petitioner points to the fact that his work has been included in the PubChem Open 
Chemistty Database, the record does not establish that his research has been implemented, utilized, or 
applauded by those viewing it. While inclusion in this database corroborates that he has disseminated his 
work, it is not sufficient to demonstrate a record of success ot: or interest in, his research. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during 
his graduate studies at University ofl I and while working atl l 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, 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 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 organic chemistry field or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the 
pharmaceutical industry. Nor does the evidence otherwise show that his work constitutes a record of 
success or progress in advancing research aimed at the synthesis o:O, the rapid synthesis ofl I D molecule collections for HTS, and new chemical reactions involving! J molecules. 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. 
6