dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Power Systems Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 30, 2024 In Re: 31263065 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job 
offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional, he did not establish that a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 1 The matter is now before 
us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
te1m "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion, 2 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
1 An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a 
bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor 's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
2 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As clarified on appeal, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is "to develop optimized operational 
techniques for integrated power systems in order to create more sustainable and efficient energy 
solutions that lead to better environmental outcomes." His endeavor is "not his work as a researcher 
or a future postdoctoral fellow." Rather those are the "means be which he wil[l] pursue his proposed 
endeavor and impact national and international enterprises." The Petitioner explained that while he is 
pursuing his proposed endeavor, he will also be earning his Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) at the 
and once completed, he will obtain a postdoctoral research position at 
the same university. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and 
national importance and we agree. 3 However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not 
establish that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor or that, on balance, waiving the 
job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual, and whether they are 
well-positioned to advance it. Id. at 890. In determining whether a petitioner is well-positioned to 
advance their 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. Id. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director applied a higher standard in evaluating the evidence 
under the second prong, pointing to language in the decision that appears similar to that used in the 
evidentiary criteria for individuals of extraordinary ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We do not 
agree that these similarities show that the Director applied a higher standard than that spelled out in 
Dhanasar. For example, the Director stated that the evidence did not show how the Petitioner's work 
"has served as an impetus for progress in the field," "affected the field," or "generated substantial 
positive discourse." However, in these instances, the Director was analyzing the evidence under up to 
three of the Dhanasar second prong factors: education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in 
related or similar efforts; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of 
potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities. The Director was not applying 
inapplicable law as asserted by the Petitioner. 
In addition, the Petitioner states that as the analysis of the second prong in the decision was copied 
from the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Director did not sufficiently review the evidence 
3 On appeal, the Petitioner asks us to overturn the Director's determinations in the decision and affirm that the proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; however, as noted above, the Director concluded that his 
proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. Therefore, the Petitioner's contention that the 
Director "failed to comprehend" the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is misplaced. 
2 
"impacted directly on the points raised in the RFE." The Petitioner further relies on Buletini v. INS, 
860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994), arguing that the Director erroneously applied the law by not 
considering the totality of the evidence provided. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the Petitioner contends the Director ignored evidence including letters from a professor and experts in 
the field, as well as the I I article on peer-review. Although we agree with the Petitioner that the 
Director did not directly discuss every piece of evidence he considers salient, he has not established 
how those omitted documents demonstrated eligibility. In other words, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Director's failure to discuss every document in detail changed the outcome of the 
case. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, 
it will not be required to specifically address each claim a petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it 
to address every piece of evidence a petitioner presents. Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th 
Cir. 2022); Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir. 1992); aff'd Morales v. INS, 208 F.3d 323, 
328 (1st Cir. 2000); see also Pakasi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 2009); Kazemzadeh v. US. 
Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Teixeira, 62 F.4th 10, 25 
(1st Cir. 2023) ( concluding a trier of fact "need not articulate its conclusions as to every jot and title 
of evidence in making a determination"). Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner is not well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner earned a master's degree in power engineering in 2012 and is currently pursuing a 
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Electrical Engineering at the Although 
the Petitioner's master's degree in power engineering is an especially positive factor, the totality of 
the evidence in the record does not show that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
A degree in and of itself is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis .gov/policymanual. 
Furthermore, 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." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 891. We look to a variety of factors in determining 
whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and education is merely one 
factor among many that may contribute to such a finding. 
In asserting his record of success, the Petitioner states that his three peer reviewed journal articles 
demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor. Although the elevated ranking of these 
journals, as noted by the Petitioner, may be one factor contributing to a showing of an individual 
researcher's record of success, we may not assume that every article published in a high-ranking 
journal is indicative of a record of success. The Petitioner also highlights his citation record consisted 
of 31 citations and states that "one paper with enough citations to rank among the top 10% of the most­
cited papers published in Engineering in 2022." Here, the Petitioner relies on citation information 
concerning the larger field of engineering and compares his citation frequency in electrical engineering 
to that of the larger field. While electrical engineering is part of the larger field of engineering, the 
Petitioner does not submit sufficient evidence confirming that information extrapolated from the larger 
3 
field applies equally to each subfield within engineering, including electrical engineering. Thus, the 
Petitioner's comparison of his citation number in his field with information regarding citation in the 
larger field of engineering does not sufficiently establish the level of his impact in the field of electrical 
engineering. Regardless, citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons 
for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis. More importantly, although we listed Dr. 
Dhanasar' s "publications and other published materials that cite to his work" among the documents 
he presented, our determination that he was well positioned was not based on his citation record. 
Rather, we based it on "[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 and funding from 
government entities." Id. at 893 
Moreover, the record contains several letters that generally discuss the Petitioner's research and 
reference the publication of the Petitioner's research in journals or the citation of his work by others, 
including a few letters who state they have cited to his research in their own papers. Again, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that his citatory evidence reflects a record of success in the field. 
The second prong in the Dhanasar analytical framework further evaluates whether the Petitioner has 
a model or plan for future activities. Here, the Petitioner states that he intends to pursue his proposed 
endeavor while conducting research at the __________ __, as well as continuing to 
publish his research in peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. While the record 
contains an employment letter from a professor at the I !confirming the 
Petitioner's employment as a researcher in conjunction with him earning his Ph.D., the Petitioner did 
not establish how this temporary job well positions him to advance his proposed endeavor. By 
contrast, the petitioner in Matter of Dhanasar was working as a postdoctoral research associate at a 
university, was already performing research and development related to his proposed endeavor at this 
university and intended to continue to do so. Id. 
The final factor enumerated in Matter ofDhanasar relates to evidence of interest of potential customers, 
users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Here, we similarly conclude that the evidence 
does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the endeavor. The 
Petitioner again emphasizes his citation record as evidence of interest from relevant entities or individuals. 
Additionally, the Petitioner contends that he has demonstrated this factor because his work "has drawn 
investment" from the National Science Foundation (NSF). However, we conclude that this assertion is 
not sufficiently established by the submitted evidence. The record shows that the I 
Iobtained a standard grant from the NSF in September 2021 for the oroiect entitled I 
I Here, the record does not show 
that the Petitioner, as opposed to the University for example, has received funding for his research 
proposals or future projects. By contrast, in Dhanasar, we noted that the petitioner had received 
"consistent" government funding of research projects in which he played a "significant" role, 
specifically that he initiated or was the primary award contact on several funded grant proposals and 
was the only listed researcher on many of the grants. Id. at 893, Fn. 11. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted and published research, 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 
4 
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 
established that his work constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing his research. 
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. 
As such, analysis of his eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no 
meaningful purpose.4 Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24. 25 (1976) (stating that ·'courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 
issues in the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5