dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Systems Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 09711255 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEPT . 30, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree , Exceptional Ability , National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , a systems engineer , 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 asserts 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 dismi ss 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. 
Furthermore, 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 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
1 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). 
2 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 
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 concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree . 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 that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be 
in the national interest under the Dhanasar analytical framework . 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec . at 889. The Director determined that the proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit, but he concluded that it does not have national importance. 
On the Form ETA 750B submitted with the petition, the Petitioner indicated that he is currently pursuing 
a Ph.D. in systems engineering at the University of1 I On the petition, he indicated that he intends 
to work as a postdoctoral fellow in the field of systems engineering. The Petitioner's statement submitted 
with the initial petition indicates that his future research plans include automating the information 
gathering practice to support the process of knowledge acquisition in the law and other domains, and 
building a comprehensive framework that provides U.S. bank regulators and the Federal Reserve with 
methods to design preventive and resolution policies for systemic risk. 
With the petition, the Petitioner also submitted an email fro~ I Pr1fessor and Chair of the 
Department of Systems and Information Engineering at the University oft ___ offering the Petitioner 
employment as a postdoctoral fellow once he obtains his Ph.D. 4 In response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a statement reiterating that he will pursue research as a Ph.D. 
candidate at the University o~ I in the systems engineering department and work as a research 
assistant there . He stated that after he graduates from his Ph.D. program, he plans to accept a postdoctoral 
job offer fro~ I 
The record also includes the Petitioner's statement that technology companies such as Google and 
Microsoft inquired about his work and suggested he apply for data scientist positions. The record 
indicates the Petitioner had done so. The Director stated in his notice of intent to deny (NOID) and in his 
denial decision that while this information may indicate the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, that the 
record did not establish private employment would necessarily allow the Petitioner to pursue his proposed 
endeavors as described in his personal statements; and that it was not apparent that such employment 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91 , for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 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 proposed employment to illustrate the capacity in which 
he tends to work in order to determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
3 
would be nationally important to the United States. In his denial decision, the Director determined that 
the evidence submitted does not support the Petitioner's claim that his proposed endeavor will have 
potential prospective impact, such as evidence that the endeavor: 
• will have broader implications, or national or global implications within a particular field; 
• has significant potential to employ U.S. workers; 
• will have substantial positive economic effects; 
• will broadly enhance societal welfare; or 
• will broadly enhance cultural or artistic enrichment. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director mischaracterized the fust prong relating to national 
importance because he focused on the Petitioner's employment options rather than his proposed 
endeavor. The Petitioner states that "USCIS must evaluate whether the activity has substantial merit 
or national importance in isolation from the beneficiary ." On appeal, the Petitioner further asserts that 
evidence of national importance was "amply evidenced in prior submissions," including: "evidence 
that poor systemic risk management has significantly harmed the United States in recent years, making 
superior mathematical decision-making models highly beneficial for the nation"; "evidence that 
freight transportation and supply chain logistics for delivery applications is in upheaval, making 
superior adaptive decision support systems highly beneficial for the nation"; and "evidence that data 
research occupies approximately one-third of the average lawyer's time, making superior information 
gathering frameworks highly beneficial to the nation." The Petitioner also states that he submitted 
evidence in response to the RFE that the United States would benefit from further research in his 
specialty, including his own statement. 
In determining national importance, 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 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 implications 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. 5 In his decision, the 
Director clearly articulated the proper factors to be considered in determining whether the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor has national importance. 
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. The Petitioner's 
statements reflect his intention to work as a postdoctoral fellow in the field of systems engineering and 
to conduct research on the application of adaptive decision support systems and mathematical models 
to complex decision-making. As previously noted, he stated that his future research plans include two 
areas of focus: 
• Leaming knowledge acquisition techniques in the law and other domains; and 
5 We noted that "an endeavor's merit may be established without immediate or quantifiable economic impact" and that 
"endeavors related to research, pure science, and the furtherance of human knowledge may qualify, whether or not the 
potential accomplishments in those fields are likely to translate into economic benefits for the United States." Id. at 889. 
4 
• Systemic risk, including developing comprehensive measures of systemic risk under 
uncertainty; developing a mechanism design methodology for regulating financial systems; 
and developing privacy preserving methodology for financial institutions. 
In support of his claims, the Petitioner submitted a letter from I I which states that the 
Petitioner's work "is highly relevant to a number of pressing issues facing the United States," including 
systemic risk management in the financial indust Further, a letter from I I 
Professor of Computer Science at the Universit o and the Director the National Science 
Foundation's (NSF) 
I ! 6 discussed .... th_e_n_a-ti_o_n-al-im_p_o_rt_a_n_c_e_o_f_P_et-i-ti_o_n-er_'_s_w_o-rk-in_a_u_t_om-a-te_d_l_eg_a_l_r_e_s_e_ar_c_h-an_d ..... 
systematic risk. The Petitioner also submitted a letter from I I Manager of Corporate 
Development at I I describing the Petitioner's work in the areas of "systemic risk in 
the nation's financial infrastructure" and "accessi bility across the corpus of legal opinions and 
decisions" as "areas of foundational importance to the nation." 
Further, I l\lice President of Research at I I described the 
Petitioner's work automating legal search activity and stated that his research is "a highly significant 
area of research for the United States." In an additional support letter,I I Executive 
Director and Chief Technology Officer of the I I said the Petitioner's work in legal 
search technologies is "very beneficial to the legal search process of the United States." The record 
shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his research at the 
University ofl I to impact the field of systems engineering more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
Thus, based on the totality of the evidence in the record, the Petitioner has demonstrated by a 
preponderance of the evidence that his proposed endeavor shows substantial merit and has national 
importance. Accordingly, the Petitioner satisfied the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, and we 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 in order to determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 
890. The record includes documentation of his curriculum vitae, academic credentials, personal 
statements, advisory opinions, recommendation letters, publications and citations, and funding 
sources. The Director concluded that the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the 
evidence that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Director noted in his 
decision that the Petitioner is engaged in ongoing research projects atl I He detailed all of the 
testimonial letters in the record, which indicate that this research is valuable and suggests significant 
interest from industry. However, the Director stated that the record does not include primary evidence 
of such interest. Moreover, he indicated that the evidence does not show the Petitioner's research has 
been implemented commercially or otherwise impacted industry. 
6 Accord in to its website,LJ"is a National Science Foundation (Nsd , , , I 
that works in artnershi with government , industry, and academia to develop the next-generationc=J 
______________ that enable decision-makers to significantly improve the way their organization's 
information is organized and interpreted .'' ! klast visited Sept. 30, 2021). 
5 
The Director also noted in his decision that the record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted 
and presented research as part of his graduate studies. He stated that this research has been accepted 
for publication, presentation, fonding, and academic credit and can be considered original research. 
However, he stated that not every individual who has performed original research can be considered 
well positioned to advance his proposed research. He noted that the Petitioner must establish his 
progress towards achieving the goals of the proposed research, record of success in similar efforts, or 
generation of interest among relevant parties supports that finding. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner has not shown that his research has been frequently cited by others or otherwise served as 
an impetus for progress in the field, such that it has affected industry. He also detailed the advisory 
letters and other evidence in the record regarding the Petitioner's research and determined that it has 
not generated substantial positive discourse in the broader academic community, or that it otherwise 
constitutes a record of success or progress in the Petitioner's area of research. In sum, the Director 
determined that the evidence submitted does not support the Petitioner's statements that the Petitioner 
is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner assets that he has established his satisfaction of prong two according to the 
"exact same factors" as the Dhanasar petitioner. Specifically, he states that he is well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor based on his education, his research experience, the recommendations 
of other experts, interest in his work by his peers, and the fonding of his work by government agencies. 
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. 
With regard to education, the petitioner in Dhanasar 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. Here, the Petitioner held two masters degrees at the time of filing: one in 
mathematical modeling and methods in economics and finance froml I I I and one in industrial engineering froml I He was in the 
process of obtaining his Ph.D. at the University o~ I at the time of filing, but his Ph.D. had not 
yet been awarded. Thus, he has not established that his education is at the same level as the petitioner 
in Dhanasar. Further, while his education qualifies him as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, the Petitioner's academic accomplishments by themselves do not 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 is merely one 
factor among many that may contribute to such a finding. 
On appeal, the Petitioner farther asserts that similar to the petitioner in Dhanasar, his substantial track 
record of research experience demonstrates that he is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor. He cites his development of a mathematical model to solve the 
I problem; his creation af a I I theory for the~U_n_i-te_d_S-ta_t_e_s_b_a_nk-in-g~ 
~s-y-st_e_m_;_a_n_d_h_i~s development of a[ I search model. He additionally states that he has 
co-authored six book chapters and one conference paper detailing his results. However, as farther 
detailed below, he has not demonstrated how his research has been implemented commercially or 
otherwise impacted industries such as transportation, banking, or law, or how it otherwise represents 
a record of success or progress rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
6 
Further, on appeal, the Petitioner cites interest in his work by his peers. He states that his published 
work had accrued 28 citations by the time of filing and that numerous independent researchers had 
relied on his work to accomplish their own subsequent research endeavors. Several of his reference 
letters commented on his citation numbers. However, as noted by the Director in his decision, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published book chapters 
reflect a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second prong. 
Of the 28 citations, information from Google Scholar indicates that his highest cited work is one book 
chapter in I I entitled I I which he co-authored with four 
other writers. 7 This chapter has received 17 citations, with his remaining published chapters receiving 
five or less citations. His conference paper received no citations. Here, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published works reflects a level of interest 
in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second prong. 
The record also includes several excerpts from articles that cited to the Petitioner's co-authored work. 8 
While the authors reference the Petitioner's research as background material for their own findings, 
and these limited excerpts do not provide sufficient information to establish a level of his success in 
the field. For instance, in an article in the International Journal of Production Economics, the authors 
indicated that the above-referenced book chapter co-authored by the Petitioner in 
identified two la er distribution networks in the suppl chain. 
'---------.-------.----------------------' Int. J. Production 
Economics.__ _____ __, The record, however, does not establish whether the article farther 
discusses the Petitioner's article or his contributions from the 39 other references in the article. 
Similarly, in an article in Transportation Research Part E, the authors indicated the above-referenced 
chapter co-authored by the Petitioner itj I discusses direct and tour trips, and supports 
the statement that "[ d]etermining a suitable location of the business center is considered one of the 
most essential steps in supply chain management."I I 
I !Transportation Research Part El I This 
excerpt, however, is similarly limited, and does not otherwise establish the significance of the 
Petitioner's role or research from the 53 other references in the article. 
As it relates to his peer review activity, the Petitioner provided documentation evidencing that his 
paper entitled.__ ________________ ~ for the 2018 Conference on Empirical 
Legal Studies in Europe (CELSE) was peer-reviewed in advance of its presentation. The Petitioner, 
however, did not demonstrate that his participation in the peer review process represents a record of 
success in his field or that it is otherwise an indication that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor. 
Further, 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 published book chapters or 
the level of interest they generated is sufficient to demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance 
his endeavor. 
7 '---~-----.------~-------------~ (Farahani, R.Z. & Hekmatfar, M. 
eds., Springer 2009). 
8 Although we discuss representative sample articles here, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 
Additionally, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that his research has been recommended by several 
experts, and that advisory opinions from independent experts describe the value of his research and 
the ways in which his research has been implemented in subsequent research projects. 9 However, the 
record does not support the Petitioner's assertion. For example, as noted above, the record contains 
recommendation letters froml U ll I andl 11 I 
stated that the Petitioner proposed a "novel risk control system based on a mechanism for I I 
' and stated this "ongoing work is highly valuable." In addition,! I '------------' stated the Petitioner "has been successful in addressing the faults in the existing legal search process" 
as he "developed measurements for model performance and evaluated the results. . . showing that his 
model and search algorithms improved on and complemented human search activity." I I 
also stated that these projects may be commercialized. However, he did not offer examples of how 
the Petitioner's research have been implemented or utilized in the fields of finance or law, such as how 
his risk control system has been utilized in U.S. financial markets, or how his model and search 
algorithms have been incorporated into existing legal research platforms . 
.__ ___ ____.I stated the Petitioner has presented two of his major research projects td I and the 
projects have received fonding. I I stated the Petitioner's constructed algorithms 
developed through research provide "a powerful tool for automated legal research but also helps to 
illuminate the ways in which various corpora of legal data are structured." Further, he noted that the 
Petitioner's work with regard to systematic risk is "consistent with the particular objectives and 
functions of the U.S. financial system and Federal Reserve, and it is designed to regulate risk without 
limiting growth." However, he did not offer examples of how the Petitioner's algorithms and research 
have affected the finance or legal industries or otherwise represent a level of success or progress 
rendering the Petitioner well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
.__ ____ _.Uescribed the Petitioner's work automating legal search activity and stated the research 
is highly use fol and "easily extendable to enable automated searches of other legal data. "I I 
noted that this research is ongoing and has not been published but has received fonding from the I I 
However, he did not offer examples of how the Petitioner's research and other findings have been 
implemented, utilized, or applauded in the field of law, or otherwise represent a level of success or 
progress rendering the Petitioner well suited to advance his proposed endeavor. I I said the 
Petitioner has "specifically made notable improvements to legal search technologies." He stated the 
"profound utility" of this research in computational law has been recognized through! I and the 
NSF, which has provided fonding for the project's continuation. However, he did not offer specific 
examples of how the Petitioner's research and other findings have been implemented or utilized in 
legal search platforms. 
Further....._ _________ __. Associate Professor at.__ __________ ___. Columbia, 
stated he "directly implemented" the Petitioner's research and used it to model and solve al I I I "because it is one of the most accepted models in the literature."! I I I a researcher in industrial and systems engineering a~ I University 
in Iran, stated the Petitioner'? formulation is well known and his research "was a foundational 
element" in his paper related to ~ in supply-chain distribution networks.I I 
9 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
8 
.__ __ ____.I Assistant Professor at.__ _____________ __, in Iran, similarly stated that he 
has used the Petitioner's research and attested to the continued importance of the Petitioner's work in 
the field. However, the writers did not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's 
research has affected their related industries, or otherwise represents a record of success or progress 
rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
Finally, on appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his research has been regularly fonded by government 
and industry, including NSF andl lwhich represents 23 industry partners. He states that this 
expert scientific analysis highlights the extent to which his research has served, and will continue to 
serve, the interests of these entities. The Petitioner submitted a letter from I I 
Innovation Mana in Director of statin the research project entitled I I 
L...---------....-------...,___,,------,.......1 was selected through a formal voting process for 
fonding of $10,000 by~---~ A~_~eport related to the project shows that M-L- was the 
principal investigator on the project, that the Petitioner was one of two researchers on it, and that it 
had an annual ro osed bud et of $40 000. Another re ort in the record related to a project 
entitled.__ ______________________ __, shows that W-S- was the 
principal investigator on the project, that the Petitioner was one of two researchers on it, and that it 
had an annual proposed budget of $40,000. These reports, however, do not indicate that the Petitioner 
was primarily responsible for securing the fonding for the research projects or that he was the only 
researcher listed on the projects. The reports list a primary investigator and the Beneficiary as one of 
the researchers, and the reports do not establish whether the Beneficiary played a significant role. 
The Petitioner also provided documentation from the University o~ !concerning the awarding 
of itsl !Fellowship in Data Science to a 1 I research proposal. The 
fellowship included a monetary award. Although a letter from the university's Vice President for 
Research indicates that the research proposal was solely the Petitioner's effort, email correspondence 
in the record indicates that the Petitioner was part of a team that was selected for participation the 
fellowship program. 10 Thus, it is not clear that the Petitioner was mainly responsible for obtaining the 
award for the research project or that he was the only researcher involved in the proposal. 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. Thus, the Petitioner has not established that his fonding reflects the same parameters sufficient 
to meet Dhanasar's second prong. 
In sum, on appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his education, his research experience, the 
recommendations of other experts, interest in his work by his peers, and the fonding of his work by 
government agencies are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor. Although the record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted and published research, 
he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 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. 
10 Inconsistencies in the record must be resolved with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
9 
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 systems engineering field or that it has generated substantial 
positive discourse in the identified industries of banking and law. Nor does the evidence otherwise 
show that his work constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing research relating to his 
fields of interest in systems engineering. As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner 
is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
The Director also determined that the Petitioner has not established 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. 
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. Thus, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding 
this remaining issue. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not 
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 
see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not demonstrated that 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. 
10