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 be 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 be 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
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on his doctorate degree in computer science from thel I I I, and we agree. 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.
A. The Proposed Endeavor
At the time of filing the petition, the Petitioner was a lecturer a~~--~lwhere he is pursuing a tenuretrack position. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is in the field of cognitive artificial intelligence (AI). He intends to develop strategic AI methodologies tailored for healthcare, medical imaging analysis, and weather forecasting models in order to improve patient outcomes, enhance diagnostic accuracy, and provide more precise and timely weather predictions for better disaster preparedness. To carry out his endeavor, the Petitioner intends to use deep learning algorithms, data streaming analytics, digital twin simulations, and remote sensing expertise in ground and space-based observational products. The Petitioner intends to continue collaborating with leading universities, hospitals and space and weather agencies to conduct large-scare data analysis, optimize AI algorithms for real-world applications and ensure ethical and transparent AI deployment. The Petitioner's overall aim is to create scalable, high-impact solutions that "revolutionize healthcare and weather-related disaster resilience, ultimately improving public health and reducing property loss and injury from disasters." The Petitioner intends to continue publishing research in peer-reviewed publications and at academic or industry specific conferences, to the benefit of the scientific community and key stakeholders in the field of cognitive AI.
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 individual 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.Past record does not show influence or success Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. "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.
SCOPS determined that the record contained insufficient probative evidence to establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. In our de novo review, we agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner has not satisfied his burden. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS ignored key evidence, unfairly dismissed probative evidence and failed to adequately explain why the Petitioner's publication record and evidence that his research is supported through grants by the federal government are insufficient to establish the record of success and the degree of interest from relevant parties needed to show he is well positioned to advance his endeavor.Citation record not persuasive
The record includes the Petitioner's personal statement detailing how he is well positioned to advance his endeavor, his curriculum vitae (CV), academic records for his doctorate degree in computer science, 10 peer-reviewed publications, five peer-reviewed conference articles, eight conference abstracts, information about journal rankings, research articles citing his research, the Petitioner's Google Scholar citation record, related citation percentile ratings, letters of recommendation, an offer from a privacy and AI governance technology company to have him provide guidance on a "large enterprise customer ... to discover and map sensitive data using machine learning, natural language processing and AI," and invitations for him to peer-review at conferences, journal publications and books, as well as to present his research at international conferences and to serve as a keynote speaker at the First International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Developments in Science, Engineering, and Technology, and as editor-in-chief of the journal Euro-Asia Academic Alliance.
The Petitioner asserts that his research has received funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Atmospheric Science Administration (NASA). The record contains a letter from Dr. M.H. 3 a research professor in the department of computer science and electrical engineering, confirming his employment a~ Ias a full-time visiting faculty and associate researcher, where he is a researcher and a mentor to students. Dr. M.H. also identifies that he is the executive manager of the NSF funded Center for Accelerated Real-Time Analytics (CARTA) and validates the Petitioner's expertise in weather and climate modeling, compressed sensing, AI, and monitoring urban wildfire spread. In response to SCOPS' request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a sec n 1 r fr m Dr M H nfirmin that Dr. M.H. is the principal investigator on the NASA grant !e-,-------1.-------.1--..,...,.,---,-...---...,..... and that the Petitioner is working as a research associate on a NASA grant a.....__..,.....,. nd "will continue in his role, contributing to AI-driven research initiatives, including wildfire modeling as a service, aerosol analytics, and healthcare informatics." Dr. M.H. goes on to "strongly support [the Petitioner's] continued association with our NASA grant and his ~research contributions. The Petitioner's CV and a letter from Dr. P.N. at thel I L___J confirms that he is a research associate and actively working on research under the NSF CARTA initiative/grant. To further establish his research is funded by NASA and the NSF, the Petitioner provided four published research articles containing acknowledgements that the research contained in the publication was supported by grants from NASA, NASA ESTO, NSF RAPID and NSF CARTA grants.
The Petitioner's second personal statement submitted in response to SCOPS' RFE states "as a CO-I on this grant, I will develop AI physics induced models to use tens to hundreds of ground Lidar instruments coupled with satellite lidar instruments to support NASA ... to measure and track aerosol 2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 3 We refer to individuals in the record by their initials to protect their privacy. p. 4 backscatter from this network of ceilometers." A letter from NASA's Dr. H.R., in the earth science division for th~ mission directorate, addressed to Dr. M.H. as principal investigator on the aforementionecL___JNASA funded research grant, acknowledges that Dr. M.H. received additional funding in the amount of $189,369 to augment the existing NASA ~he letter explains that all awards are given tol land that NASA will hold Dr. M.H. an'L__Jresponsible for carrying out the investigation.
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 ofpeer and government interest; the significance of his role in his research projects; consistent funding 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 he has consistent research funding or interest from government agencies to independently pursue his proposed endeavor and establish he is well positioned to advance his endeavor. As previously stated, the Petitioner asserts SCOPS ignored relevant evidence that his research is supported through grant funding from NASA and the NSF. However, we agree with SCOPS' that the evidence provided does not show that the Petitioner's research is funded through these U.S. government entities. Rather, the evidence provided shows that Dr. M.H. submitted a successfpl...nmnopl for funding, whic~ lhas been given, and that the Petitioner is an employee ofL___J The evidence does not establish that the Petitioner is independently funded to pursue his endeavor. Lastly, the Petitioner did not submit any corroboration to establish he is a key personnel member on the NASA grant.
The Petitioner asserts that his citation record reflects his "status as a key driver of progress in the field of cognitive artificial intelligence." The record contains letters from experts in the field attesting to his "scientific skill set and research endeavors," "notable citations" of his published research, and citation percentile ratings compiled by Clarivate Analytics showing the citation rates for computer science publications received 1.61 and .16 citations in 2023 and 2024, respectively. This data also shows that for 2023, a publication receiving 19 citations is among the top one percent and receiving five is among the top 10 percent for the field of computer science. For 2024, receiving four citations places the publication in the top one percent, and receiving one citation places the publication in the top ten percent for the field of computer science.
The Petitioner further asserts that because his citations come from "independent researchers," this underscores that his work is consistently deemed "valuable by researchers with no personal or professional connection to him." His RFE response also included three additional letters ofreference attesting to how the Petitioner's research contributions have impacted their and others work in the field of cognitive artificial intelligence.
As to the Petitioner's citations his most cited ublication is published in 2023. Many of the citations appear to come from only a handful of researchers, which does not establish the level of impact or interest in the Petitioner's research endeavor that he purports p. 5 his research has garnered. Lastly, one paper is not sufficient to establish that an individual is well positioned to pursue a proposed endeavor by a preponderance.
The Petitioner's bibliometrics evidence is unpersuasive to establish the significance of his citation record and research to the larger field of cognitive AI for the following reasons. First, the cited statistics concern the field of "computer science," which is distinct from his particular field of cognitive AI. Second, the statistics are quantitative in nature and do not reveal the reasons for the citations, which would involve a qualitative analysis and corroborate his assertion that his research is "valuable." As such, the Petitioner has not sufficiently corroborated his assertion that his research citation record underscores a record of success in his field of cognitive AI.
The record contains an important ambiguity with respect to whether his proposed endeavor is tied to hr positiln a~ IThe Petitioner's personal statement explains that he will continue his endeavor a for the "foreseeable future," and pursue a tenure-track position.
4 However, the Petitioner's
I statement also • es that his endeavor is "distinct from [his] position of employment," but that his position at serves as his "chief opportunity to pursue" his endeavor. Given that he is currently employed
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 of a Form I-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.