remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Complex Networks

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 20, 2024 In Re: 33947855 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a professor in the field of complex networks, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification (EB-2) 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 immigrant 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 the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 term "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest 
waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as 
matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts to 
conclude that the national interest waiver determination is discretionary in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner holds a Ph.D. in computer science from I in Malaysia 
and is an associate professor of the Department oflnformation Technology atl lin 
Pakistan. The Petitioner submitted an academic evaluation, diploma, and transcripts demonstrating 
that he qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. The remaining issue 
is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analysis, which considers the substantial merit and national 
importance of the proposed endeavor, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual 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. Id. 
The Director identified the Petitioner's endeavor as being "a Researcher in the field of Complex 
Networks" and determined that the endeavor is of substantial merit but not of national importance. 
The Director did not specifically address or analyze any piece of evidence under the first prong but 
concluded that "multiple articles, studies, and reports" submitted by the Petitioner do not demonstrate 
national importance "as there is no significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." The Petitioner contends 
on appeal that the Director mischaracterized his proposed endeavor and erred in analyzing the 
endeavor's national importance only on the basis of its economic impact. 
Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner that the Director did not discuss or analyze the full extent 
of the endeavor in evaluating the national importance. On remand, the Director should revisit the 
descriptions of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in his personal statements, recommendation 
letters from other professors who refer to his research, and the contents of his peer-reviewed journals 
and focus on what the Petitioner will be doing rather than the specific occupation. 
For example, the Petitioner's personal statements describe his endeavor as "[analyzing and 
visualizing] complex real world systems as networks in order to improve understanding of their 
robustness, vulnerability, and self-organization." The Petitioner's plan is to pursue a position as an 
assistant teaching professor in computing and information science at ___________ 
( or other similar university) and perform research in "modeling and analysis of COVID-19 diffusion 
as a two-mode complex network" and "finding best software development team composition using 
complex network approach." The Petitioner also included other future research topics such as "two-
2 
mode network analysis of dengue epidemic in USA" and "identifying the main key nodes in the 
dark/terrorist ( covert) networks." 
Furthermore, the Director did not analyze the endeavor's national importance in terms of its broad 
impact to the field as contemplated in Dhanasar: "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. After identifying 
the Petitioner's endeavor on remand, the Director should determine whether the endeavor has national 
importance by considering the broad implications of his research in advancing and understanding the 
field of complex networks. 
B. Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their 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. at 890. 
The Petitioner, on appeal, claims that the Director failed to evaluate all of the relevant evidence, 
disregarding his "23 peer-reviewed journal articles and seven conference papers that received 327 
citations" and "three of his papers had received enough citations to rank among the top 20% of the 
most-cited papers in all of Computer Science in their respective years of publication." 
The Petitioner also claims that the Director erred by imposing novel factors that do not have a proper 
legal basis in Dhanasar. 
Here, the Director did not address or analyze the evidence based on all the factors listed in the second 
prong of Dhanasar. In doing so, the Director overlooked or was dismissive of the evidence relevant 
to the second prong analysis, such as the Petitioner's Ph.D. in computer science, journal citations, the 
number of published articles, or recommendation letters in the record. For instance, the Director stated 
that the Petitioner "did not submit any independent, objective evidence to show that the beneficiary 
has a record of success as a Researcher in the field of Complex Networks" and dismissed the journal 
citations or impact factor as not being sufficient in supporting the Petitioner's influence in the field. 
The Director also applied standards that are outside the scope of the analytical framework established 
in Dhanasar by requiring the Petitioner's journal articles to have "new facts or analysis" instead of 
merely "[summarizing] the current state of understanding on a topic and [ summarizing] previously 
published studies." 
On remand, the Director should conduct an individualized consideration of the multifactorial analysis 
under Dhanasar's second prong to determine how well positioned the Petitioner is to advance the 
proposed endeavor in the field of complex networks. The Director should closely examine the 
Petitioner's co-authored journals featured in scientific outlets on topics such as complex network 
modeling of dengue epidemic, using complex networks on the software development team 
composition, or analyzing dark networks with link prediction methods. The Director should consider 
the Petitioner's attainment of a Ph.D. in computer science to evaluate whether it is an especially 
positive factor in consideration with the other factors while keeping in mind that a degree in and of 
3 
itself is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor. Id. 
The Director should analyze the evidence under the preponderance of evidence standard, or that the 
Petitioner is, more likely than not, well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. If the Director 
finds the evidence insufficient, the decision should explain the reasons for ineligibility based on the 
factors set in Dhanasar' s second prong. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
The third prong requires a 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, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the individual's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer 
or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are 
available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national 
interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. 
In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish 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. 
Id. at 890-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the decision "made no effort whatsoever to analyze any of the 
relevant factors explicitly mentioned in Dhanasar." We agree that the Director did not sufficiently 
acknowledge and address the evidence of record weighed in balancing the relevant considerations in 
the third prong of Dhanasar. An officer must fully explain the specific reasons for denying a visa 
petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i); see also, e.g. Matter of M-P- 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) 
(finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a 
meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). On remand, the Director should 
re-evaluate the Petitioner's claims under the third prong in light of the revised analysis of the first two 
prongs per the discussion above and explain the relative decisional weight given to each balancing 
factor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
This matter will be remanded to the Director to determine if the Petitioner has established eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent 
to the new determination. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this 
case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4