The Petitioner, a power electronics researcher, 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).
USCIS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus ofthe 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 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.
If petitioners establish 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 USCIS may, as matter of discretion,
1 grant a national interest waiver if petitioners demonstrate that:
- The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance;
- The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Again, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. At initial filing, the Petitioner provided a brief statement claiming that "[ m ]y proposed endeavor is to develop novel experimental setups and topologies for 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). p. 2 accurately characterizing semiconductor devices in order to advance semiconductor capabilities for a range ofrenewable energy, electric vehicle, and industrial applications."
However, the Petitioner did not offer a specific proposed endeavor as contemplated under Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Instead, the Petitioner's personal statement discussed broad plans without providing specific information. The Petitioner did not farther elaborate and did not specifically indicate, for example, what type of"novel experimental setups and topologies" he intended to develop, how such setups and topologies will "characterize[ e] semiconductor devices," and how semiconductor capabilities will be advanced in renewable energy, electric vehicle, and industrial applications. The Petitioner's broad, general claims do not satisfy the requirement of a specific proposed endeavor pursuant to Dhanasar.Proposed endeavor too vague In response to the request for evidence, the Petitioner offered another personal statement maintaining the same broad proposed endeavor.
Simply intending to continue work or generally indicating in broad terms that he will develop novel experimental setups and topologies is not sufficient unless the Petitioner provides particular information that establishes a specific proposed endeavor as required under Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Without a specific proposed endeavor, a determination cannot be made whether the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance (prong one), that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the endeavor (prong two), and on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States (prong three). Accordingly, we withdraw USCIS' favorable determinations relating to substantial merit and national importance under prong one because a decision cannot be made for any of the prongs in the absence of a specific proposed endeavor.
As the Petitioner has not offered a specific proposed endeavor as required under Dhanasar, we conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 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.
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.