The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver ofthe job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2).
The Directorofthe Texas Service Center denied the FormI-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not established that he met the second and third prongs under the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 As a result, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that a waiver of the requiredjob offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest.
Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. 2 Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion , 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 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he is eligible for a national interest waiver.
The Petitionerbears the burden ofproofto demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361;MatterofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010).
In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter ofNew York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act.Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDO'I).
See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interestwa iverto be discretionary in nature). the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.
Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal.
SeeDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs.
We reviewthequestionsinthismatterdenova. SeeMatterofChristo'sInc.,26I&NDec.537,537n.2(AAO2015). p. 2 The Petitioner is currently a research associate at the Universi~ in the field of electrical : Isystems, and applied and computer engineering. His research "focuses on robotic~! ,_________.I" Specifically,heisinvestigating1)theuseofL lminiaturd
I
Analysis
5I agents to treat cardiovascular disease through a grant from the National Science Foundation, 2) the uses of small, floatin~ Idevices which transmit informatio to protect a I I3) new methods to control drones and 4 a new system for the I l o f u n d e r w a t e r r o b o t s t _ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ · The Director The Petitioner, through counsel, argues on appeal that the Director did not properly analyze his case in comparison to the standard set by Dhanasar. The Petitioner asserts that the Director is legally required to compare the impact of his work with that of Dr. Dhanasar and cites to the concept of precedent decisions in support. While we agree that Dhanasar is a precedent decision and further acknowledge the concept of precedent decisions and their controlling nature, the Petitioner has cited no legal authority for a one-to-one comparison of two petitioners operating in different fields with different proposed endeavors. Dhanasar establishes an analytical framework to examine national interest waiver cases, but it does not mandate, or even suggest, that a side-by-side comparison of individual petitioners and endeavors is required. The Petitioner misunderstands the nature of precedent decisions when he asserts that approvals are required for any petitioner with more impact than Dr. Dhanasar.
Notwithstanding the above, for the reasons discussed below, we find the Petitioner has established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the remaining two prongs ofthe Dhanasar analysis.
A. WellPositionedtoAdvancetheProposedEndeavor
The second prong of the Dhanasar analysis focuses on the Petitioner. To detennine whether he 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.Past record does not show influence or success
The record includes copies of the Petitioner's advanced degrees, numerous cited articles (many of which list him as the first author), evidence of the receipt of grants, and reference letters from researchers and medical professionals that discuss the importance and practical applications of his research ro ·ects, and the advances he has made. For exam le, the letters indicate that the Petitioner ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=.~....,,........"' I ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ . . . . , , . . . . . . . . ' which "allows a The Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent o f a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and a master's degree in electric energy. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and meets the first prong under the Dhanasar analysis and we agree.
At the time offiling, the Petitionerwas a post-doctoralfellow.
O p. 3 drastic increase in the stren h o f the roduced," a n d ~ - - - - - - - - - - - ~
The Petitioner's experience and expertise, published work and its impact upon other researchers, record of success, and progress in advancing his research projects establish that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. We therefore conclude that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.
B. BalancingFactorstoDetermineWaiver'sBenefittotheUnitedStates
The third prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the UnitedStatestowaivetherequirementsofajobofferandthusofalaborcertification. Notonlydoes the Petitioner possess considerable experience and expertise, but the record also demonstrates the widespread benefits associated with research developments in his field and their broad application. The Petitioner has documented his past successes in advancing research and providing influential research findings. Based on the Petitioner's track record of successful research and the significance of his ongoing studies, we find that he offers contributions of such value that, on balance, they would benefit the United States even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available.
Conclusion
The Petitioner has met the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework. We conclude that he has established he is eligible for, and otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.