The Petitioner is a researcher in the field of computer science who 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 (NIW) of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).
SCOPS denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (petition), concluding that the record established the Petitioner qualified for the underlying visa classification, but he did not merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103 .3. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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.
Ifa 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) of the 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.
IL NIW
The Petitioner earned a Master of Science in Computer Science and Enrneering and a Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering, both from thel He completed his Ph.D. in August of 2024, approximately one month before filing this petition. Within the initial filing, the Petitioner explained his proposed endeavor as the following:
My proposed endeavor is to utilize domain-specific accelerators and computer architecture design skills in sparse matrix multiplication, graph, and machine learning in order to make advances in artificial intelligence. To progress this endeavor, I will utilize my extensive experience with computer architecture design and simulation.
My proposed endeavor is my overarching goal for my research career, and it will not change regardless of where I am employed. Therefore, while I will engage in employment opportunities that are aligned with the goals ofmy proposed endeavor, my ability to pursue my proposed endeavor is in no way connected to any one employer or role. I am currently employed as a research scientist atc=J I began my position of research scientist in July of2024 and plan to continue in this position for the foreseeable future.
He discussed the work he claims he has been performing for. ____________, and he noted
I
Instead of performing scientific research untethered from any employer, it appears the Petitioner has attempted to characterize the work he performs at ~ to constitute his research, or proposed endeavor. While the Petitioner's reasoning for this attempted disconnect is unclear, we are not convinced that-in this particular case and based on the job the Petitioner claims he performs for ~his proposed endeavor is not closely tied to, and reliant on, his work. For instance, in the RFE response statement, the Petitioner mentions the term research but discussed the type of work-and in the same areas-he performs in his position atl IIn that same statement, the Petitioner even stated: My current responsibilities are relevant to my proposed endeavor because my skill set in computer architecture and accelerator design allows me to better understand the hardware to unlock its full potential. These kernels are also the foundation ofbuilding software on top of the hardware, requiring highly skilled expe1is to achieve the best possible performance and power efficiency. I will continue to publish my findings and give talks and conferences such as pytorch conference. I'll continue to make contributions to the research community and push for advancement of computer architecture and AI research.
As it stands, it appears more likely than not that the Petitioner's research endeavors rely on his employment with ~and we conclude any research he performs is likely directly tied to his vocation. Because the Petitioner has not shown he has any other opportunities in which to facilitate and fond foture research, and because he has not demonstrated that if he left his cmTent employment, any other employer would employ him in a position that facilitates research in his area of expertise, we do not subscribe to his efforts to separate out his proposed endeavor from the work he claims to perform forl Ito include the attendant benefits of that particular position. While this is not necessarily detrimental to the Petitioner's claims, it is unclear why he seemingly went to such lengths to divorce any research he might perform, from his work at I I As it relates to his proposed endeavor, we consider it to be research whether through his work atc=]or research distinct from his employment.
SCOPS made an adverse determination under each of the Dhanasar prongs to conclude he is not eligible for this immigration benefit.
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Id. 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.
SCOPS decided his proposed endeavor had substantial merit and we agree with that determination. But they also concluded the Petitioner did not make a showing that his endeavor was of national importance. The Petitioner's chief complaint on appeal is that SCOPS evaluated his endeavor to be the work he performs for~ but for the purposes of his appeal we will presume his proposed endeavor will be to perform research. Despite SCOPS' determination to the contrary, advancements inl Iopen-source large language model (LLM)-in the areas of the Petitioner's research-could p. 4 have an impact on the artificial intelligence (AI) field and improve LLM efficiency more broadly. The Petitioner has explained why the benefits of his proposed endeavor extend beyond his employer and its clients. We therefore withdraw SCOPS' adverse decision under prong one and conclude that by establishing the substantive merit and national importance ofhis proposed endeavor, he 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. To determine whether they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to: (1) their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; (2) a model or plan for future activities; (3) any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and ( 4) the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals.Past record does not show influence or success Id. at 890.
The record includes the Petitioner's academic credentials, curriculum vitae, published articles and publication related materials, peer review activity, evidence of past funding sources, and letters discussing his past research projects and publications. He also provided evidence ofarticles citing his published work, infonnation about the journals that published his work, and independent advisory opinions discussing his research. SCOPS determined that, after consideration of the relevant factors, the evidence submitted did not establish that the Petitioner was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. After reviewing the record, we agree the Petitioner doesn't meet Dhanasar's second prong.
First, while we acknowledge that the Petitioner's Ph.D. in this science, technology, engineering, or mathematics field is a salient positive factor for consideration, academic accomplishments by themselves are not necessarily sufficient to establish that an alien is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. See generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (citing Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893). We consider that factor "along with other evidence for purposes of the assessment under the second prong." Id. Here, despite the Petitioner's educational credentials, we note that when he filed this petition, he had no postdoctoral research experience in or related to the field of his proposed endeavor. Compare Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 891-92 (noting Dr. Dhanasar' s relevant postdoctoral research in the proposed field as a factor indicating he was well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor). The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his academic accomplishments are sufficient to carry his claims that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
Background and record ofsuccess. Moving to the collective factors we consider under Dhanasar's second prong, the Petitioner has demonstrated he possesses an education and skills to advance his endeavor. And as part of his record of success, he briefly points to support letters he provided in the RFE response.
First, the Petitioner identifies the letter from. __________. But the Petitioner's RFE response p. 5 indicated that the Petitioner's work with graph sparsification methods was an essential component of one of his own studies, a review of that study does not reflect such a weighty reliance on the alien's work as the paper only cites to his work in one paragraph in the Background section. While this shows some level ofreliance on the Petitioner's findings, it does not distinguish his work from the other 62 cited works, nor does it appear to support the claims within the professor's letter describing the alien's research as vital or promoting substantial development in the computer science field. SCOPS discussed other shortcomings relating to the support letters and contrary to the Petitioner's claims in the appeal brief, the supp01i letters do not adequately "discuss in detail the influence of [the Petitioner's] research throughout the field, showing that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor."
Also, the appeal brief reflects that"[d]ue to his knowledge and expe1iise in computer architecture and domain-specific accelerators, [he] has been regularly invited to conduct peer review for authoritative conferences and journals in the field." The appeal brief continues indicating that because only the most highly esteemed researchers in the field are invited to evaluate the work oftheir peers, especially in notable venues, it is clear that the Petitioner is seen as very knowledgeable in the field and an expert in topics related to his proposed endeavor. While the record does reflect the Petitioner has performed some peer review work, he did not submit evidence demonstrating these were "in notable venues." Within the initial filing the Petitioner provided a conference ranking printout, but he did not demonstrate he conducted peer review for any of the conferences on the list. Ultimately, he has not documented the stature of the aforementioned journals or conferences, nor offered other evidence demonstrating that his occasional participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in his field or that it is otherwise an indication that he is well positioned to advance his research endeavor.
Nor does the Petitioner's publication record adequately support his claims under Dhanasar's second prong. Within the appeal, the Petitioner also notes his citation record to include one article ranking among the most cited articles in computer science in its publication year. The record reflects that the Petitioner has conducted research during his graduate studies, but he has not demonstrated that this research work renders him well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Even though we recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way to be accepted for publication, presentation, funding, or academic credit, not every individual who has performed original research will be found to be well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. While one of the published works he was associated with received an above average number of citations, the remaining publications were in single digits. He provided citation information about the larger field of computer science and compares his citation frequency in artificial intelligence or machine learning to that of the larger field. While we acknowledge that artificial intelligence or machine learning is part of the larger field of computer science, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence confirming that information extrapolated from the larger field applies equally to each subfield within computer science, including artificial intelligence or machine learning. As a result, the Petitioner's comparison of his citation number in his field with information about citations in the larger field of computer science does not establish the level ofhis success, or impact, in the field of artificial intelligence or machine learning.
Regardless, citation frequency-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 his work has impacted or advanced the field of computer science in such a way that renders him well positioned.
Further, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number ofcitations received through his published articles at the time of filing reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar 's second prong.No interest from users, customers or investors Although the single above average publication is a favorable factor, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the overall number of citations received by his published journals and atiicles, in and of themselves, reflect a record of success in similar efforts to meet Dhanasar 's second prong. The Petitioner here has not sufficiently demonstrated that his published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the field of AI. Nor does the evidence otherwise reflect that his work constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing his research. To illustrate, 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, expertise, and experience in his field, the significance of his role in research projects, as well as the sustained interest of and fonding 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.
But as we explain, the Petitioner here has not depicted such a mosaic of factors forming the basis for satisfying this requirement. With each piece of evidence that contains the types of sh01icomings that both we and SCOPS have noted, it becomes more and more difficult for the Petitioner to craft their tapestry illustrating his eligibility.
Plan or progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor. And the Petitioner does not fare better when we evaluate his claims associated with his model or plan for future activities, or with any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor. About a plan for future activities, the Petitioner's appeal only points to his two personal statements he offered before SCOPS. Absent from the record is any material from~to corroborate the Petitioner's claims within his personal statements. We note the job title atc=Jthat the Petitioner listed in these statements was as a "research scientist." But we will not presume the Petitioner's claimed job title simply because he offered information on his curriculum vitae. He has offered no evidence fromc=] to either confirm his employment with the company, to verify his job title, or to corroborate what duties he performs for them. Such a presentation essentially amounts to an assertion, which does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. See Matter ofG-C-1-, 29 I&N Dec. 176, 178 (BIA 2025) (finding that unsupported assertions are not facts or evidence and will not carry a filing party's burden of proof). In the end, he hasn't established that he works for~or what duties he performs for them.
It is also unclear from the record that~intends to publish the Petitioner's research in "publications in top hardware and AI conferences" as he claims. Especially considering that he did not offer any evidence to corroborate that~employs him in a position that would facilitate such publishing. p. 7 What is more, he didn't demonstrate that~intends to sponsor or finance any ofhis research efforts. Nor did he provide evidence that any other organization has committed to fund, or has funded, any possible future research. Again, the Petitioner's assertions that are not confirmed with probative evidence fall short of satisfying his burden of proof. Id.; see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 71-72 ( concluding that assertions that are not supported by probative material will not meet a filing party's burden of proof); see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, F.5(D)(3) (stating that "unsubstantiated claims would not meet the petitioner's burden of proof').
Within the appeal, the Petitioner also relies on events that occurred after he filed this petition, but a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time they file the visa petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). USCIS may not approve a visa petition if the Petitioner was not qualified at the priority date but expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998);MatterofKatigbak, 14 I&NDec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). As a result, achievements or developments subsequent to the petition filing date cannot be factored into an evaluation of this petition.
Interest ofrelevant entities or individuals. And the Petitioner does not prevail under this prong when he discusses the "interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals." See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Here, the Petitioner's appeal brief solely focuses on other researchers in the field who have cited his published work. In Dhanasar we discussed letters describing U.S. Government interest and investment in his research and the "significant role" he played in projects funded by grants from noteworthy government entities. Those factors are absent here. Above we determined that the Petitioner's citation history did not reflect a record of success, and here the Petitioner has not demonstrated a sufficient level of interest in his work from others in the field. The record lacks qualitative evidence demonstrating that the type ofand the level ofattention his work has garnered rises to the level of interest necessary to show he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
And we note the Petitioner's appeal brief does not even mention any funding for past or future research under prong two. Despite that, we note that while past research bearing his name as an author did receive funding, those articles did not identify who among their authors was primarily responsible for securing the funding for the research projects. As it stands, the record does not include evidence establishing that the Petitioner was the primary awardee or recipient of any grant funding, nor does the record reflect the amount of funding received. In Dhanasar, the record established that the petitioner "initiated" or was "the primary award contact on several funded 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 his coauthors or advisors, for example-was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects. And he has not offered any other evidence to demonstrate he was responsible for the funding. And as we noted above, the Petitioner has not provided any claims or evidence relating to future funding for his research.
C. We Reserve Dhanasar 's Remaining Third Prong
As we explain above, Dhanasar 's third prong requires the Petitioner to demonstrate he is eligible for an NIW meeting additional requirements. But because the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor satisfies the Dhanasar framework's second prong, he is not eligible for an NIW p. 8 and further discussion ofthe third prong would serve no meaningful purpose. Consequently, we will not address, and we reserve the Petitioner's remaining appellate arguments. Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328,332 (2022) (citing INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (finding agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision)); see also Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216, 229 n.8 (BIA 2025) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden.
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 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.