The Petitioner 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 immigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner is eligible for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she had not established that a waiver of the required job offer and 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 ofproof 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish whether he or she is an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act.
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, he or she must then demonstrate that he or she merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (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:
- The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance;
- The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
To begin, we agree with SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree because she has a master's degree in computer science from I lwhich she obtained in 2017. Thus, the sole issue on appeal 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 United States' national interest.
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner demonstrated her proposed endeavor has substantial merit but not that it is of national importance in full satisfaction of Dhanasar 's first prong. SCOPS further determined that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong. However, for the reasons discussed later in the decision, we disagree and withdraw SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. A. First Prong: Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake and its "potential prospective impact." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. The term "endeavor" is more specific than the general occupation; thus, a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that occupation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual.
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit. As stated above, an endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In addition to her personal statement, the Petitioner provided reference letters, her peer-reviewed publications, reports, and government publications related to obesity, Alzheimer's disease, eating disorders and the Trump Administration's Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiatives including the establishment of a MAHA commission. 2 Because the Petitioner's proposed endeavor aims to address healthcare issues that are the subjects of multiple government initiatives, she has satisfied her burden of establishing her proposed endeavor has substantial merit.
To evaluate whether an endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we noted that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." 2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. p. 3 I
Id. We also gave significant weight to "probative expert letters from individuals holding senior positions in academia, government, and industry that describe the importance ofhypersonic propulsion research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests" and "detailed expert letters describing U.S. Government interest" in Dr. Dhanasar's specific research. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 892. At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a senior research data analyst at I Iin the department of psychiatry and behavioral ~sc-i-en_c_e_s_._T_h_e~ Petitioner proposes to develop advanced computational methods and data analysis pipelines to investigate cognitive and behavioral functions to enhance diagnosis, treatment, and understanding of neuropsychiatric disorders. The Petitioner identifies Alzheimer's disease, Parkingson's disease, schizophrenia, aging-related disorders (particularly those leading to memory loss), as well as eating disorders as potential neuropsychiatric disorders her endeavor would focus on. The Petitioner explains that she will "engage in employment opportunities that are aligned with the goals of [her] proposed endeavor, [ and that her] ability to pursue [her] proposed endeavor is in no way connected to any one employer or role." The Petitioner also explains that for the foreseeable future, she intends to continue working in her position atD
The Petitioner asserts that the prospective impacts ofher proposed endeavor include developing "more advanced early detection strategies" for Alzheimer's disease and other neuropsychiatric disorders. Moreover, the Petitioner asserts that because six million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's disease, the impact from her research is potentially broad and of national importance. She also asserts that other researchers have and will continue to benefit from her work to identify what changes in the brain lead to certain cognitive disorders. Furthermore, the Petitioner asserts that her proposed endeavor's impact goes beyond researchers to offer "beneficial solutions to challenges in public health and obesity prevention ... [by] reducing healthcare costs and improv[ing] health outcomes" and that her research will offer "practical applications for healthcare professionals, policymakers, and public health advocates," to promote "healthier communities."
The Petitioner provided multiple letters of support asserting her endeavor is of national importance. Dr. S.C.,3 fromc=]describes how the Petitioner's research on how COVID-19 related stress impacts eating and nutrition choices is of national importance because it "informs strategies for stress management and cognitive interventions to encourage healthier eating choices." And, in response to SCOPS' request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a letter from another~ research professor, Dr. T.M., corroborating that other researchers have cited the Petitioner's research on COVID-19 related stress, which has led "healthcare professionals and policymakers [to be] equipped with insights needed to promote healthier food choices and achieve improved public health outcomes."
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that SCOPS misconstrued the proposed endeavor, and ignored evidence that childhood obesity, which is preventable, causes significant public health and socioeconomic downstream effects, such that the benefits of her proposed research endeavor could reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. The Petitioner also asserts that SCOPS failed to consider the research fonding support she received from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Institutes on Aging (NIA), and Dalio 3 Throughout our decision, we use the initials of reference letter writers to protect their privacy. p. 4 Philanthropies, which "deemed [her] work worthy of fonding." The Petitioner also re-asserts her research may improve the lives of the millions of Americans diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and lead to improved cognitive behavior therapy for those suffering from eating disorders. However, in reviewing the totality of the evidence, we conclude that the Petitioner did not satisfy her burden to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, her proposed endeavor's national importance because she has not explained, with sufficient detail, how her endeavor will impact the field of neuroinformatics at a level commensurate with national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar. First, the Petitioner's assertions that her proposed endeavor could lead to early detection of Alzheimer's disease are not sufficiently corroborated. The Petitioner identified one particular project, a clinical trial, she is pursuing as such:
I am responsible for the neuroimaging components aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of AGBlOl, a proprietary low-dose formulation of levetiracetam, for treating hippocampal hyperactivity in individuals diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease (AD), specifically among those who are apolipoprotein E4 (ApoE4) non-carriers. The goal is to determine whether targeting hippocampal hyperactivity with AGB 101 provides clinical and cognitive benefits to participants and slows neuronal degeneration, particularly within the entorhinal cortex (ERC) during the early stages of the disease. The primary objective is to assess neuronal injury by measuring changes in entorhinal cortex (EC) volume and thickness using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). By evaluating the neuroimaging biomarkers associated with neuronal injury, this research contributes directly to the development of targeted and effective treatments to slow the progression of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease.
The Petitioner asserts this research is ofnational importance because it will improve clinical outcomes and provide critical data to inform future therapeutic approaches to neurodegenerative disorders. However, the reference letters provided do not discuss this research. Of particular note is the letter from Dr. S.C., who the Petitioner works with at~and who she has published several papers with. Dr. S.C. 's letter discusses the impact of Petitioner's research on the psychological effects of stress on food choices and obesity but does not mention the above clinical trial work related to Alzheimer's disease.
Likewise, the letter provided by Dr. Z.W., from I Idescribes the impact of the Petitioner's research as primarily in the area of eating behaviors and neurobehavioral responses to stress and food motivation. Dr. Z.W. also describes the impact of Petitioner's research on cognitive functions in mildly cognitively impaired individuals and how it affects their financial decision making. However, Dr. Z.W. does not describe the Petitioner's past or future research or her clinical trial aimed at early detection and therapies to address Alzheimer's disease. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. See Matter ofCaron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility, thus, the submission of these support letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445,460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying p. 5 weight that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value).
Second, the Petitioner's evidence does not provide sufficient or consistent information to understand how her research will further the field of neuroinformatics beyond adding to the body of knowledge. The Petitioner asserts that her research will be published in peer-reviewed journals, which will advance the field of neuroinformatics. The letters she provides from other researchers familiar with her publications assert that the research she has carried out on obesity resulted in a finding that the "brainbased markers of obesity appear before physical weight issues develop, offering stakeholders new avenues for effective clinical approaches." However, the letters do not describe how the Petitioner's research has impacted on the field of neuroinformatics or how her future research will impact on this field beyond publishing or reviewing other researchers' work. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of national importance because they would not extend beyond his students to impact the field more broadly. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Similarly, here, a preponderance of the evidence establishes the main potential beneficiaries of the Petitioner's proposed research are other researchers. However, that is not sufficient to establish the broader claimed impacts on the field of neuroinformatics, healthcare, or policymaking such that her proposed endeavor could be considered of national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar. Third, while the Petitioner asserts that her endeavor's impact could go beyond other researchers to include creating practical solutions and tools to combat obesity and Alzheimer's disease, the record lacks evidence to support this claim. For example, Dr. S.C.'s letter explains that the Petitioner's research led to a proposal of "stress management strategies and cognitive interventions aimed at shifting preferences toward healthier food options." However, the letter does not provide sufficient details to understand what the proposed strategy entails or if it was adopted by clinicians or policymakers to effect broader benefits on society. Likewise, the letter provided by Dr. Z.W. at _______ _. explains that the Petitioner's research will improve "policy development, healthcare planning, and resource allocation especially in the context of aging populations," but does not go on to identify the practical tools or solutions.
Upon de novo review, the Petitioner's assertion that SCOPS discredited the funding she received from government sources is insufficiently persuasive. First, this information is generally considered as part of our analysis ofDhanasar 's second prong, when we examine whether a petitioner is well-positioned to advance the endeavor. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. More importantly, however, the Petitioner's evidence does not establish any on-going government funding for her research at a level commensurate with national importance. For the above-stated reasons, we affirm SCOPS' determination that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit, she has not established that it is of national importance.
B. Second Prong: Well-positioned to Advance Proposed Endeavor The second Dhanasar prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. To determine whether an alien is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to 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, or investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. p. 6 Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.Past record does not show influence or success Furthermore, "USCIS considers an advanced degree, particularly a Doctor ofPhilosophy (Ph.D.), in a STEM field tied to the proposed endeavor and related to work furthering a critical and emerging technology (CET) or other STEM area important to competitiveness or national security, an especially positive factor to be considered along with other evidence for purposes of the assessment under the second prong." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, F.5(D)(4), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual.
The record includes the Petitioner's personal statements describing her proposed endeavor, her curriculum vitae, academic records for her master's degree in computer science, her peer-reviewed publications, conference abstracts, research articles citing her research, her Google Scholar citation record, related citation percentile ratings, letters of recommendation, and acknowledgements of her work as a peer reviewer of others' research papers. SCOPS determined that the Petitioner is wellpositioned to advance the proposed endeavor, however, for the following reasons, we disagree and withdraw that determination.
Since December 2022, the Petitioner has worked as a senior research data analyst at._l_______. I lin the department ofpsychiatry. The Petitioner's personal statement provides the following description of her current position, and how it relates to her proposed endeavor:
I want to emphasize again that my proposed endeavor is my overarching goal for my research career, and I intend to pursue it regardless ofmy specific place ofemployment.
However, I am providing my employment information to confirm my capacity to advance the proposed endeavor in my current employment.
While the Petitioner makes clear she intends to carry out her research into neuroinformatics aO the record contains no exeicit strement fromc=Jconfirming that they intend to support her research. The letter provided from Dr. S.C. does not confirm the Petitioner is permitted to carry out her proposed endeavor and does not mention pertinent details contained in the Petitioner's statement related to her intention to apply machine learning (ML) techniques to identify biomarkers for early diagnosis and treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders. Instead, Dr. S.C. 's letter describes how the Petitioner "co-developed and implemented a self-report tool that captured individuals' willingness to work, pay, and wait for different food categories, including sweets, fruits, savory snacks, vegetables, and fast food." While this tool, and the Petitioner's data analysis helped Dr. S.C. and other researchers find a correlation between stress and "increased motivation for less nutritious foods," the information relayed in the letter does not relate to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to use ML techniques, which appears central to how she intends to carry out her proposed endeavor in the field ofneuroinformatics. Relatedly, the Petitioner has not described with sufficient detail how she intends to carry out her research endeavor at0while simultaneously working there as a senior research data analyst. While it appears that her endeavor and her current position are interrelate ,the(etitioner does not explicitly state what amount of time she will devote to her current position at 1 and to her research endeavor or how the two are the same or different. As the record stands, it is unclear if she will simultaneously pursue her research endeavor and work as a senior research data analyst, or if she will pursue her research endeavor on her own time.
The record contains factors that weigh in favor of the Petitioner, including her master's degree in a p. 7 STEM field, the fact that her intended research relates to advanced data processing and analysis techniques, which are CET areas important to U.S. competitiveness, her previously published research in journals (Alzheimer's and Dementia, Appetite, Journal of Neuroscience, Obesity, PLOS One, Scient[fic Reports, and the Journal ofAlzheimer's Disease), the 110 scholarly citations her research received ( at the time of filing), and invitations to review research publications extended to her by the journals Appetite and PLOS One. We farther acknowledge that the Petitioner is first-author in one of her peer-reviewed publications, and that she is first-author of four of her conference abstracts. However, these favorable factors alone are insufficient to establish the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
In Dhanasar, the petitioner held three advanced degrees, including a Ph.D., tied to his proposed research which had significant implications for U.S. national security and competitiveness. We also favorably considered the significance ofhis research which had been corroborated by evidence of peer and government interest; the significance of his role in his research projects; consistent fonding from government agencies ofhis research projects; and his position with a U.S. university where he intended to conduct his proposed research work. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 892-93.
Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she has consistent research fonding or interest from government agencies to pursue her proposed endeavor.No interest from users, customers or investors In addition, the record contains an important ambiguity with respect to whether her proposed endeavor is tied to her position at D or if it is entirely independent as she claims in her personal statement. Moreover, her proposed endeavor related to a clinical trial, which she describes as one ofthree projects she is pursuing, lacks any corroboration. As to the Petitioner's 110 citations, her most cited publication "The Influence of COVID-19 related stress on food motivation," published in 2021, was authored by six other researchers, and her actual level of contribution to the paper is not apparent. The Petitioner's publication, "Neural correlates of appetite in adolescents," for which she was first author, received four citations. Thus, her citation record as an independent researcher is insufficient to establish she is well-positioned to advance her proposed research without additional support from other researchers and grants, which the record does not establish she has garnered outside of her position atD Moreover, the Petitioner's bibliometrics evidence is unpersuasive to establish the significance of her citation record to the field of neuroinformatics for the following reasons.Citation record not persuasive First, this information concerns the larger field of "neuroscience and behavior" and is quantitative in nature and does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which would involve a qualitative analysis. For example, the Petitioner asserts that her 2021 article "The influence of COVID-19-related stress on food motivation" was in the top 10% most cited articles published in the category of neuroscience and behavior. However, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence confirming that the information deduced from the larger field applies equally to her subfield ofneuroinformatics. Second, OpenAlex's database shows the Petitioner's "areas of research and ... citation record" during her active years in the field "place her among the top 6% of researchers in terms of citation impact and the top 1 % of researchers in the field in terms of research productivity." However, this data is also quantitative in nature and not qualitative and does not sufficiently establish the level of interest in her research. 4 Lastly, the 4 OpenAlex is a large, open database of scholarly works, authors, institutions, and citations. See, https://openalex.org. The p. 8 Petitioner provided information to show that the citations she has received came from various countries in six continents. However, because the nature of research is collaborative, this evidence, which is similarly quantitative and not qualitative, does not reflect a level of interest in her work from relevant parties due to the significance of her research.
As previously stated, the Petitioner asserts SCOPS ignored relevant evidence that her research has received grant fonding from the NIH, NIA, and Dalio Philanthropies. However, the fonding she received relates to previously published research, and the evidence provided does not address how the Petitioner will fond or pursue her proposed research into neuroinformatics.
For all these reasons, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient relevant evidence to establish the feasibility of her proposed endeavor or evidence demonstrating she has the means or financial support to undertake her proposed research in the United States, and we will withdraw SCOPS' contrary determination on the second Dhanasar prong.
C. Third Prong: On Balance, Waiving the Job Offer Requirement Would Benefit the United States Our third prong analysis requires us to evaluate relevant evidence relating to one or more of the following factors: whether, in light of the nature of the person's qualifications or proposed endeavor, it would be impractical to obtain a labor certification; the benefit to the United States from the prospective alien's contributions, even if other U.S. workers were also available; and the national interest in the person's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Another relevant factor includes whether the labor certification process may prevent an employer from hiring a person with unique knowledge or skills exceeding the minimum requirements standard for that occupation. 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i). Our third prong analysis may also consider whether the alien's endeavor has the potential to generate considerable economic impact, for example, with economic revitalization and potential job creation. See generally, Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Finally, when the petition concerns a STEM field, we may consider whether the United States may benefit from the alien's entry, regardless of whether other U.S. workers are available, particularly ifthe alien possesses an advanced STEM degree, especially a Ph.D., the alien will be engaged in work furthering a CET or other STEM area important to U.S. competitiveness; and the alien is well-positioned to advance the proposed STEM endeavor of national importance. See generally, 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(4).
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS's third prong analysis was "somewhat inadequate, as it failed to engage with the totality of the evidence of record ..." and thus abused its discretion. However, because the record does not establish prongs one or two of the Dhanasar framework, we data found on OpenAlex can be used to measure how much interest other researchers have in a person, topic, or paper. Id. However, there are well known limitations to this data including that self-citations are not accurately flagged, topics that are trendy may receive more citations (also known as citation bursts), highly collaborative fields inflate citation counts. negative citation counts receive the same count as positive citations, and there is a bias towards English-language journals. In the case of citation bursts, because OpenAlex indexes and reports citations directly from the scholarly record, it inherits this systemic bias. As it relates to the Petitioner's research, her COVTD-19 research may have received an inflated citation count due to the trendiness ofCOVID-19 as a topic. As evidence ofthis, we note that her article "The influence ofCOVID-19-related stress on food motivation," published in 2021, received a total of 55 citations, and was cited most in 2022. and has received less citations every year since its publication. p. 9 reserve our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the third Dhanasar prong. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision).
Conclusion
The Petitioner's appeal will be dismissed because she has not satisfied her burden of demonstrating her proposed endeavor is ofnational importance, or that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
NOTICE: This constitutes the final decision in this matter. The filing of a motion will not postpone the effect of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iv). Aliens who are not lawfully present, or who are otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may be subject to the commencement of removal proceedings under section 240 ofthe Act through the issuance ofa Form 1-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.