Earthquake Research and NIW National Importance: The Missing Evidentiary Link

Earthquake preparedness is a national concern. That premise does not, without an evidentiary connection, establish the national importance of every proposed seismology project. In In Re: 43865098, a doctoral researcher proposed using artificial intelligence and advanced seismological methods to improve monitoring and risk management. The AAO accepted the value of the subject but found that the record did not sufficiently explain how the particular research would produce the broader effects claimed.

The August 26, 2026 nonprecedent decision dismissed the NIW appeal on Dhanasar’s first prong. Its analysis concerns the evidence of prospective impact in that record, rather than a rule that earthquake research, doctoral work, or university research cannot support a national interest waiver.

What the researcher proposed

The petitioner was pursuing a geoscience doctorate and researching induced seismicity. He described work as a seismology research scientist using data-driven methods for earthquake monitoring, seismic hazard assessment, and risk management. He linked the proposal to infrastructure resilience, energy development, public safety, and federal earthquake programs. See pages 1–2.

He also argued that USCIS mischaracterized his occupation. The AAO found that the descriptions of geophysicist and teaching and research assistant came from his own I-140 answers, and that USCIS had considered his description of the work. The title objection therefore did not establish error in the national-importance analysis. See page 2.

Substantial merit did not resolve national importance

The AAO adopted and affirmed the national-importance determination below while explaining its reasoning. Government reports and earthquake-loss information supported the importance of the field. They did not show how this researcher’s proposed work would generate the claimed broader effects. The AAO distinguished the proposed endeavor from the general profession or industry. See pages 1–3.

The underlying statute permits a waiver when it is “in the national interest” to waive the job-offer requirement. See INA § 203(b)(2)(B)(i). Dhanasar supplies the three-part framework applied in the decision. Under its first prong, merit and national importance are distinct requirements; evidence supporting one does not automatically establish the other.

The missing connection involved expected results and their use

The AAO recognized that research can be disseminated through publications and presentations. Its concern was that the record did not adequately identify expected findings, methodologies, models, or other results and connect them to likely use by researchers, government agencies, industry, or others. Assertions that the research would improve safety and resilience did not themselves establish that prospective effect. See pages 2–3.

The AAO identified an evidentiary gap in this record. Its decision does not establish a commercial-adoption requirement for research petitions. Evidence of likely influence on scientific methods or developments can be relevant even where a proposal does not involve product sales or direct employment creation.

Personal accomplishments answered a different question

The petitioner relied on his publications, presentations, and experience. The AAO explained that qualifications and past success principally concern whether the person is well positioned to advance the endeavor under prong two. They did not, as presented here, establish the prospective importance of the proposed work. Evidence may bear on more than one issue, but the submission must explain the connection rather than assume it. See page 3.

What the decision actually resolved

Because the national-importance requirement was unmet, the AAO did not further analyze prongs two and three. The appeal was dismissed and the petition remained denied. See pages 3–4.

For a research proposal, useful preparation starts with specific planned work and a supported explanation of how its outputs may matter beyond the immediate project. Independent evidence, credible descriptions of expected use, and expert analysis tied to the actual future work can help address that question. These are evidentiary considerations, not a universal checklist or a guarantee. The complete record, field, and applicable legal developments remain controlling in an individual case.

Legal Disclaimer. Originally published: 11/01/2026. This article provides general information only and is not legal advice for any particular matter. Laws, policies, procedures, fees and agency practices may change; their application depends on the facts and jurisdiction. Consult a qualified attorney about your circumstances before acting on this information. Reading this article or contacting Blumsack & Canzano does not, by itself, create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.