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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for 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 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 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 they are 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, they must then demonstrate that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) ofthe Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 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
SCOPS found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.2 The sole issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver ofthe requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest.
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was a Ph.D. student at. __________________.
She indicated that her proposed endeavor is aimed at developing "cutting-edge methods to explore the underlying environmental, molecular, and genetic mechanisms of diseases, particularly in the case of cancer, to enhance clinical treatment and improve patient outcomes." The Petitioner further stated that her "planned research topics include investigating the role of specific molecular and genetic pathways in etiology of common diseases and cancer, exploring novel therapeutic interventions, and endeavoring to transition them from basic biomedical science to future clinical applications." As discussed below, we conclude the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar.
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. We agree with SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit.
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We withdraw SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong. As evidence that her proposed research has substantial merit and national importance, the Petitioner presented information about cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. She also provided letters of support discussing how her undertaking helps contribute to advancements in diagnostic techniques and therapeutic approaches for various forms of cancer. Additionally, the Petitioner submitted documentation indicating that the benefit of her proposed research offers broader implications for cancer biology, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through scientific journals and conferences. As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed research, she has established that she meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. Id. at 890. 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.Past record does not show influence or success Id.
The record includes documentation ofthe Petitioner's curriculum vitae, master's degree and transcript, published and presented work, Chinese patent, and peer review service. The Petitioner also offered evidence of articles that cited to her published work, citation metrics, and letters of support discussing her research.
The Petitioner contends on appeal that SCOPS did not correctly evaluate evidence in the record, and that this evidence establishes she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner farther argues that SCOPS did not properly analyze her published and presented work, citation evidence, letters of support, education, research fonding, patent, and peer review service.Citation record not persuasive For the reasons discussed below, the record supports SCOPS' determination that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor under the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
In letters supporting the petition, the Petitioner's references discussed her graduate research projects.4 For example, Dr. Y-Z-, a professor at._______________. asserted that the Petitioner "investigated the effects of exposure to concentrated ambient particulate matter on gut and lung microbiota, as well as the corresponding metabolic changes." While Dr. Y-Z- stated that the Petitioner's findings "suggested that exposure to these pollutants triggered a cascade of adverse effects extending beyond respiratory issues to metabolic disorders and microbial imbalances in the body," he does not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings are being utilized to improve pollutant exposure mitigation strategies. Nor has the Petitioner otherwise demonstrated that her research findings constitute a record of success or progress rendering her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
In addition, regarding the Petitioner's breast cancer research, Dr. X-M-Z-, a professor atl I I lindicated that the Petitioner "examined the role ofa long non-coding RNA named IncRNA APOClPl-3 in the spread of breast cancer" and discovered "that it interacted with miRNA-188-3p, which in tum inhibited the anti-apoptosis protein Bcl-2 and enhanced the survival rates ofbreast cancer cells." Dr. X-M-Z- farther asserted that the Petitioner's findings "highlighted IncRNA APOClPl-3 as a viable target for therapeutic interventions," but she did not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected cancer treatments, or otherwise shows success or progress at a level that renders her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
Furthermore, Dr. M-J-, an assistant professor at I Istated: "By illuminating the specific microbial and metabolic changes caused by PM2.5 and other pollutants, [the Petitioner's] 4 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one.
, I
I 1c2021)
Ic2021),I u2020),I
I' (2022) and 1
I" c2020)
I research provides critical insights into the most effective strategies for reducing the adverse health effects of pollutant exposure." Dr. M-J- additionally wrote that he and others cited the Petitioner's research paper on this topic, but the Petitioner has not shown that this level of interest in her work or her record of success in research is sufficient to demonstrate she is well positioned.No interest from users, customers or investors
The Petitioner states that she has coauthored "10 peer-reviewed journal articles" and "3 first-authored abstracts ... in authoritative venues like Molecular Cancer."5 As it relates to the citation ofher work, the Petitioner provided her Google Scholar profiles from February 2024 and, in response to SCOPS' request for evidence (RFE) from December 2024 The most recent nrofile indicated that her five highest cited articles, entitled I each received 75, 29, 14, 11, and 6 citations, respectively. 6 The Petitioner also provided 2024 data from Clarivate Analytics (In Cites Essential Science Indicators) regarding baseline citation rates and percentiles by year of publication for the "Molecular Biolo & Genetics" research field. The Petitioner contends that her 2021 a er entitle ranked among "the top 10% most cited articles published in 2021 in "Molecular Biology & ,___e_n-et..,..ics" based on the 7 5 citations it has received. 7 Likewise she asserts that her 2021 paper, entitled ' is "one of the top 20%
'---------------------------------' most cited articles published in 2024 in Molecular Biology & Genetics" based on its 29 citations. But the Petitioner relies on citation information concerning the larger field of Molecular Biology & Genetics and compares her citation frequency in cancer biology and disease etiology to that of the larger field. While we acknowledge that cancer biology and disease etiology are branches ofthe larger field ofMolecular Biology & Genetics, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence confirming that information extrapolated from the larger field applies equally to each subfield within Molecular Biology & Genetics, including cancer biology or disease etiology. Thus, the Petitioner's comparison of her citation number in her field with information regarding citation in the larger field of Molecular Biology & Genetics does not sufficiently establish the level of her success or impact in the field of cancer biology or disease etiology.
Addition allv the Pet1 ... ..... ... ....... m ........ itt.,.eci_.an......... a .......cJ e .................... c .... ·ie.... 1t ......... m""e .... ·s ........ wr ...................... hvl....._________,_l.... au :t....,i < mu..aer__._._s1 1h .... ... ... rti ...... in S..... ..., n ... t_,_r .... ic ..... itten .... ...d......, ~ I entitleal ________________________________.~; This article presents 5 For example, the Petitioner presented Google Scholar metrics for "Oncology" publications based on their h5-index and this information shows that Molecular Cancer ranked fourth. That a publication bears a high journal ranking or impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, show the influence of any particular author or otherwise demonstrate how an individual's research represents a record of success in their field. 6 None of the Petitioner's remaining articles had received more than two citations as of December 2024. 7 The Petitioner was listed as one of 13 coauthors of this paper and has not demonstrated that she was among its lead authors or was otherwise a significant contributor to the paper relative to its numerous other coauthors. p. 5 recommendations for "how to evaluate individual researchers in the natural and life sciences" for purposes of fonding and promotion or hiring decisions. The authors state that "publications which are among the 10% most cited publications in their subject area are as a rule called highly cited or excellent" and that "the top 10% based excellence indicator" should be given "the highest weight when comparing the scientific performance of single researchers." While the authors offer proposed methods for bibliometric analysis of research performance, the record does not indicate that their methods have been accepted and implemented by the academic community. Moreover, with respect to citation information from Google Scholar, the authors advise against "using Google Scholar (GS) as a basis for bibliometric analysis. Several studies have pointed out that GS has numerous deficiencies for research evaluation."
The Petitioner's RFE response included OpenAlex author metrics which she claims compare her citation impact to that of other researchers in the field of "Molecular biology." Again, the Petitioner relies on citation information concerning the larger field of molecular biology and compares her citation frequency in cancer biology and disease etiology to that of the larger field, but she has not shown that information extrapolated from the larger field applies equally to each subfield within molecular biology, including cancer biology or disease etiology. Regardless, citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis. In other words, a high citation number might show that others in the field have noticed the Petitioner's work, but it does not confirm that her work has impacted or advanced the field of in such a way that renders her well positioned.
Regarding a qualitative analysis of the citations to the Petitioner's work, the record contains artial co ies of several articles that cited to her a ers (includin her a er, entitle for example). These articles include the text of the citation, which the Petitioner asserts highlight the impact of her papers. While we agree with the Petitioner that these citations indicate some degree of interest in her research from her colleagues and peers in the field, this evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest or a record of research success that renders her well positioned. The articles in the record cite to her work as an example of research done in the field or in their introduction section as part of an overview of current research, but none highlight or comment upon her research in a way that demonstrates she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. As it relates to the Petitioner's education, while her master's degree renders her eligible for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, she has not shown that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. 8 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." Id. at 891. We look to a variety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is well 8 "USCTS considers an advanced degree, particularly a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), in a STEM field tied to the proposed endeavor and related to work fmthering a critical and emerging technology or other STEM area important to U.S. competitive 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 USC1S Policy Manual, F.5(D)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. A degree in and ofitself, however, is not a sufficient basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Id. p. 6 positioned to advance their proposed endeavor and education is merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding.
The record includes evidence that the Petitioner and seven others frm,J I coauthored a Chinese patent, entitleq _
I IWhile a patent recognize'-s-th_e_o_n_· g-in_a_l-it_y_o_f __-an-id_e_a_,_i_t_d_o_e_s_n_o_t_b_y_i-ts_e_l_f_d_e_m_o_n_s_tr-a-te-th_a_.t the inventor is well positioned to advance their endeavor. Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Here, the Petitioner has not offered supporting evidence showing the significance of this patent. For instance, the Petitioner has not demonstrated in what way her invention has affected the cancer biology or disease etiology fields or otherwise shows a record of success or progress rendering her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner also asserts that she has received support for her work from "major fonding sources." In support of her claim, she submits several of her published articles in which the authors noted that their work was supported by either the National Natural Science Foundation of China or the National Institutes of Health. 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. Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than one of her professors, for example) was mainly responsible for obtaining fonding for their research projects.
With respect to her peer review activity, the Petitioner presented documentation indicating that she reviewed manuscripts for BMC Cancer, Cell Death and Differentiation, JCI Insight, and Cancer Gene Therapy. She has not demonstrated, however, that the level and frequency of her participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in her field or that it is otherwise an indication that she is well positioned to advance her research endeavor. 9 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during graduate studies, but she has not shown that this work renders her well positioned to advance her proposed research. While we recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way 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 their 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 demonstrated that her work constitutes a record of success or progress in cancer biology or disease etiology rendering her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. As the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she is well positioned to advance 9 To establish that it would be in the national interest to waive the job offer requirement, a petitioner must go beyond showing their expertise in a particular field. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute. individuals of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given petitioner seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, that individual cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in their field of expertise. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 886 n.3. p. 7 her proposed research endeavor, she has not established that she satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Conclusion
Because the documentation in the record does not establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor as required by the second prong ofthe Dhanasar precedent decision, she has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding her eligibility under the third prong outlined inDhanasar. 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).
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that she has not established she 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.
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.S(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 of a 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.