The Petitioner, an optical science engineer, 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. § l 153(b)(2).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is 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 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 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature).
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
Analysis
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. Based upon the evidence in the record that the Petitioner obtained a Ph.D. in applied physics in 2024, we agree. The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest under the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar.
Regarding the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver, SCOPS determined that the Petitioner established only the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor. SCOPS found that the Petitioner did not establish the endeavor's national importance, that he is well-positioned to advance it, or that, on balance, a waiver of the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification On appeal, the Petitioner contends that SCOPS erred by ignoring relevant evidence in the record, mischaracterizing the proposed endeavor, and ignoring the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) provisions of the USCIS Policy Manual relating to national interest waivers. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to develop and utilize advanced numerical tools to analyze the extraordinary material properties emerging from strongly correlated quantum materials in order to advance scientific understanding and develop next-generation materials that supersede present-day superconductors and magnetic materials for applications in energy and information technologies. The Petitioner states that he is pursuing his proposed endeavor through his current employment as an optical science engineer at I I, which he intends to continue for the foreseeable future, and that he is also advancing his endeavor through research outside of this employment. In response to SCOPS' request for evidence (RFE) the Petitioner submitted an updated personal statement in which he farther discussed specific research projects that he is pursuing outside of his employment. He also reiterated that his positio~is aligned with his proposed endeavor, as it is in a "researchintensive group" within L___jhardware technologies group, that the knowledge and skills he develops in this position are directly transferrable to his proposed endeavor, and that this work may result in patentability technologies that can advance the field.
Upon review and for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the record establishes both the substantial merit and the national importance specifically ofthe research-based aspects ofthe proposed endeavor. We therefore conclude that the Petitioner has established his eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong and we withdraw SCOPS' conclusion to the contrary. However, to the extent that the Petitioner's endeavor involves employment at I Ithe record is not sufficient to establish that this aspect of the endeavor is of national importance. Additionally, because the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we agree with SCOPS that the record does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the second Dhanasar prong, and we will dismiss the appeal on that basis.
A. The Proposed Endeavor Has Substantial Merit and National Importance
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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. Thus, we look for evidence ofa proposed endeavor's broader implications in the field. If an endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, that may well be understood to have national importance. Id. at 890-91. In addition, Matter of Dhanasar explained that a proposed endeavor may be of national importance if it has "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. at 889.
Furthermore, our policy pertaining to national interest waivers related to STEM fields is relevant here. USCIS policy recognizes the importance of progress in STEM fields and the essential role of persons with advanced STEM degrees in fostering this progress, especially in focused critical and emerging technologies, or other STEM areas important to U.S. competitiveness or national security. See generally, 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Thus, in our analysis of an endeavor's national importance, if the endeavor aims to advance STEM technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, and the impact of the endeavor is to "also have sufficiently broad potential implications," it may be of national importance. Id.
In support of the proposed endeavor's substantial merit and national importance, the Petitioner explains in his personal statement that strongly correlated quantum materials, such as cuprate high temperature superconductors (HTSCs), have implications for defense readiness, energy security, and advanced transportation due to their potential to provide lossless energy transfer. The Petitioner also explained the current limitations in their use and that additional research in developing numerical simulations and modeling to understand the properties of these materials is necessary for their further development in real-world settings.
To support these claims, the Petitioner submitted multiple relevant articles and reports addressing the potential broad implications of further research and development related to these materials to fully develop their potential applications. For example, the Petitioner submitted information from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) High Temperature Superconductivity Program, and evidence related to the DOE's funding of projects related to developing novel manufacturing technologies for superconducting tapes. The record also contains recommendation letters from the Petitioner's research collaborators and others in the field who describe the importance of the Petitioner's prior research and the potential broad implications of further research and development in advancing numerical tools to analyze the material properties of strongly correlated materials. Based on the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and the national importance of his proposed research, and therefore he has established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
However, to the extent that the Petitioner's endeavor involves employment atO the record is not sufficient to establish that this aspect of the endeavor is of national importance. The Petitioner claims p. 4 that his position with D aligns with his proposed endeavor, that it is "highly-research oriented" and that the knowledge and skills he develops in this role "are directly transferrable" to his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner also claims that his work at LJwill be patentable, and that by "enriching the national IP portfolio," his work with~drive innovation and economic growth. However, the Petitioner did not submit evidence fromc=J such as a job description or support letter from the company, or other documentation to support these claims. The evidence in the record is not sufficient to show that the benefits of the Petitioner's position atl Ihave the potential to result in broader implications beyond the benefits to his employer.No broader implications shown In Matter ofDhanasar, we discussed how teaching would not impact the field of education more broadly in a manner which rises to national importance. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. By extension, activities which only benefit the Petitioner's employer would not rise to the level of national importance.
B. The Record Does Not Establish That the Petitioner Is Well-Positioned to Advance the Endeavor In the second prong, we consider whether the individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Id. at 890. In this determination, 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 Id.
SCOPS found that the Petitioner did not establish that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the record does establish that he is well-positioned, primarily based upon his education, publication history, citations, and letters ofrecommendation. The Petitioner specifically objects to SCOPS' finding that the Petitioner's letters of recommendation do not establish his contributions to the field. The Petitioner also objects to SCOPS' finding that the evidence only demonstrates publication ofresearch that the Petitioner completed during his education, and that it lacks evidence of any "recent" publications. To further demonstrate the Petitioner's recent publications, he provided on appeal evidence ofa new paper submitted for publication. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the record does not establish the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
Turning to the factors enumerated in Matter ofDhanasar for evaluating evidence under the second prong, we conclude that the Petitioner's education, skills, and knowledge are positive factors in supporting his positioning to advance the proposed endeavor. See id. Specifically, the Petitioner has obtained a Ph.D. in a field related to his proposed endeavor and his published research shows that he has developed skills and knowledge that would be useful in continuing to research numerical tools to analyze the extraordinary material properties emerging from strongly correlated quantum materials. Additionally, we conclude that the evidence, including the letters of recommendation, credibly demonstrates the Petitioner's prior research contributions. We therefore disagree with SCOPS that the record lacks evidence from experts who discuss his contributions to the field.
The next factors applicable to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework are the petitioner's model or plan for future activities and any progress toward achieving the proposed endeavor. Id. As stated above, the Petitioner's plan for future activities includes continuing his full-time employment with I las an optical science engineer while pursuing his research interests during "evenings and weekends." In his personal statement submitted in response to the RFE, the Petitioner specifically p. 5 discussed a collaboration with Professors T.D. 2 and B.M. at~I-------~land Professor C.J. at the.__ _______
Here, we conclude that the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. We acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that papers published in 2025 should be considered "recent," but regardless of the recency of the publications, we agree with SCOPS' finding that the record does not sufficiently establish that the Petitioner has conducted research outside of his educational program. The Petitioner received his Ph.D. in April of 2024. The record shows that the two articles published in 2025 were submitted in May and August of 2024, very soon after the Petitioner received his Ph.D., and he is credited in both of these publications as being affiliated with either the Department of A]plied Physics at I I or the I I I Therefore, while the papers may be recent and were published after the Petitioner's Ph.D. was awarded, the record nevertheless appears to show that the research was conducted as part of the Petitioner's Ph.D. program. We do not discredit the value of the Petitioner's research work completed during his education, but we do conclude that the evidence is not sufficiently probative ofthe Petitioner's future ability to continue to publish and present research outside of the academic environment.
As stated above, the Petitioner did submit evidence on appeal that he has collaborated on one paper since completing his Ph.D. Nevertheless, we conclude that this single research paper is not sufficient to demonstrate the credibility of the Petitioner's plan to advance the proposed endeavor during his evenings and weekends. For example, the Petitioner relies heavily on his claimed research collaboration to support the credibility of his future plans. However, the record does not include other documentary evidence regarding this collaboration. The Petitioner did submit recommendation letters from Professor C.J. and Professor T.D., two ofthe collaborators. While the letters speak highly of the Petitioner and describe some of his past research accomplishments, notably they do not discuss nor support the Petitioner's claims regarding these ongoing research projects that the Petitioner claims he is pursuing with them. We conclude that the evidence is therefore not sufficient to show that the Petitioner has maintained or will maintar the revious progress he achieved towards his proposed research while simultaneously working a full-time.
The final factor enumerated in Matter of Dhanasar relates to evidence of interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Here, we similarly conclude that the evidence in the record does not weigh in favor of demonstrating that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the endeavor. In support ofthis factor, the Petitioner contends that the citations to his published articles and his recommendation letters demonstrate interest in his work. However, beyond having been cited in published works, the articles do not describe how his future research endeavor has interest or support from others in his field.Citation record not persuasive See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(l) (providing examples of evidence to establish a petitioner is well-positioned, such as excerpts of published articles showing positive discourse around, or adoption o±: the person's work). We acknowledge the letters provided by professors from the I I and the I I attesting to their own citations to his research, and the positive impact of the Petitioner's research; however, the letters do not describe how the Petitioner will carry out future research activities given 2 We use initials to protect individuals' privacy. p. 6 that he is no longer a graduate student, a postdoctoral fellow, or in a full-time researcher position at I ~ Thus, while the letters speak to the impact of his past research, they do not demonstrate he is well-positioned to carry out hisfi1ture proposed research endeavor.
The record also does not contain evidence that the Petitioner has received U.S. government funding, or that he initiated or was the primary award contact on any funding proposals. Cf Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 892-93 & n. 11 (noting the significance of Dr. Dhanasar's own research projects that received consistent, repeated government fundings, for which he was the initiator and primary award contact on several funding proposals and the only listed researcher on many of the grants). The record does not contain evidence of other ongoing financial or institutional support for the Petitioner to pursue his proposed research endeavor during "evenings and weekends," nor has the Petitioner provided any information or explanation as to why additional funding or support is not necessary for the Petitioner to pursue his research. For these reasons, we conclude that the record does not sufficiently establish interest from relevant entities or individuals.No interest from users, customers or investors
Not every individual who has conducted original research and published findings, even findings important to their field, will be found to be well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Rather, we must examine the factors set forth in Matter ofDhanasar to determine whether, for instance, the individual's education, skills, and record of success, their model or plan for future activities, their progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and the generation of interest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890. The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and record of success in related efforts, as demonstrated by his education, publication history, and recommendation letters are positive factors. However, they are not sufficient to overcome the lack of evidence establishing the Petitioner's plan for his future research activities, his continued progress toward achieving the endeavor outside of his fulltime employment, or interest from potential investors or other relevant entities. In considering the record in totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
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 of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner 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 our opinion regarding his eligibility under 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 has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
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 p. 7 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.