The Petitioner, a physician and researcher specializing in cardiovascular medicine, 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 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).
The Director ofthe Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest.
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that he is eligible for a national interest waiver. In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest.
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework:
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. -(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or p. 2 who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare ofthe United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. . . . [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer in the United States.
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. 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 the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreignnationalproposestoundertake. Theendeavor'smeritmaybedemonstratedinarangeofareas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact.
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine whether he or she 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.
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the UnitedStatestowaivetherequirementsofajobofferandthusofalaborcertification. Inperforming this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter ofNew York State Department of Transportation, 22 T&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01).
See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature).
Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established p. 3 national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined 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 national interest.
At the time off~etitioner was working as an internal medicine resident at I Iin . The Petitioner provided a letter from the program director of the internal medicine residency at stating that he "is responsible for taking care of patients but at the same time he dedicates a significant amount of his residency to work on important research projects in A Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor The Petitioner indicated that he intends to continue his research relating to I Icardiology to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.
Analysis
cardiovascular disease." andl effectiveness ofl forl with advanced sfegrees ofl
H~ explained that his proposed research is aimed at ooderstanding the _Iin treatingI !disease, optimizing treatment techniques occlusions, and determining the optimal statin dosage for patients !disease.
!disease
The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. For example, the record includes information from the American Heart Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention discussing the prevalence of cardiovascular disease in the United States and its adverse effects on public health. In addition, the Petitioner provided documentation indicating that the benefit of his proposed research has broader implications, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through medical journals and conferences. As the Petitioner has documented both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed cardiovascular research, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs.
As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from a specific employer. However, we will consider information about his current position to illustrate the capacity in which he intends to work in order to detennine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework.Benefits limited to an employer or its clients
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. As previously noted, his clinical work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Because the Petitioner's proposed cardiovascular research has broader implications for the field (unlike his work as a clinician), our analysis under this prong will focus on whether he is well positioned to advance his proposed researchrelatingtol !cardiologyand.________.disease. Forthereasonsdiscussed below, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance that research under Dhanasar's second prong.
The record includes documentation ofthe Petitioner's curriculum vitae, academic credentials, medical certifications, peer review activities, published articles, and conference presentations. He also offered evidence ofarticles that cited to his published work , and reference letters discussing his past research projects.
In letters supporting the petition, several medical professors discussed the Petitioner's research aimed For example, regarding the Petitioner's lclinical professor at University of School of Medicine, stated: "[The Petitioner's] investigation showed that patients who receive ~--------~exhibited fewer procedural complications during stent insertion and that there was no association betweenI Iblood vessels and negative outcomes in the long term." I Iindicated that this study "suggests thatl I is a safe and effective approach to increase the success rate ot'Oprocedures." The record includes a July 2018 Google Scholar citation report indicating that the aforementioned study published in Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions (entitled ___________ 8 .__ _ _ . ) has received one citation since its publication in August 2017.
For instance, the Petitioner provided a July 2018 citation report from Google Scholar indicating that his article in Expert Review ofCardiovascular Therapy (entitled 'I bhas received 11 citations since its online publication in January 2017. We note that three of these citations reflect self-citation by the Petitioner. In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner argued that he has a stronger citation record than Dr. Dhanasar, the petitioner in our Dhanasar precedent decision. While we listed Dr. Dhanasar's ·'publications and other published materials that cite his work" among the documents he presented, our determination that he was well positioned under the second prong was not based on his citation record.Citation record not persuasive Rather, in our precedent decision we found "[t]he petitioner's education, experience, and expertise in his field, the significance of his role in research projects, as well as the sustained interest of and funding from government entities such as NASA and AFRL, position him well to continue to advance his proposed endeavor of hypersonic technology research." Id. at 893. We look to a variety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and citations are merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding.
The Petitioner provided October 2017 data from Clarivate Analytics regarding baseline citation rates and percentiles by year of publication for various research fields, including "Clinical Medicine." This documentation from Clarivate Analytics states that"[c]itation frequency is highly skewed, with many infrequently cited papers and relatively few highly citedpapers. Consequently,citationratesshouldnotbeinterpretedasrepresentingthecentraltendencyofthedistribution." Regardless, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his articles in Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions and Expert Review ofCardiovascular Therapy reflects a level ofinterest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet this prong.
In addition, I Iassociate professor of medicine at the University ofI....____, I !assertedthat"[o]neoftheareasof[thePetitioner's researchwithwhichIam most familiar is his comparative analysis ofI I stents and forthetreatmentofcoronaryartery~--------.... occurring ~as_a_c_o_m_p_l-ic_a_t-io_n_o_f_co_r_o_n_a~ry artery disease." I Ifarther stated that the Petitioner's work "identifiedI las resulting in lowd Imortality and improvedc==Jdiameter" and that his "findings help to establish clinical agreement on the ideal treatment forl_j" but the Petitioner has not shown that these findings have been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in the field.
With respect to the Petitioner's research involving I....____;:::=::::::!...l..:;disease,~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,, adjunct clinical associate professor of medicine at Universit oj work demonstrated that "angioplasty patients who receive Iindicated..-=~~~~=~......., andPast record does not show influence or success
Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States
As explained above, the third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. Here, the Petitioner claims that he is eligible for a waiver due to his medical training, knowledge and skills in his specialty, research experience and accomplishments, the importance ofhis field, and the impracticality of labor certification. However, as the Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor as required by the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that he has not established he 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.