The Petitioner, a scientist, 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. § 1153(b )(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a waiver ofthe job offer requirement 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 ofproof 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) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 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.
Analysis
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, and further concluded the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit but did not sufficiently satisfy it is of national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. Based on our de novo review of the record, we conclude the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the substantial merit and the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong. Specifically, we conclude that the Petitioner has submitted insufficient and inconsistent evidence regarding the substantive nature of his proposed endeavor.Inconsistencies in the record While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one.
The Petitioner provided in his petition that his proposed employment would be as a scientist, his worksite location would be in I I Maryland, and his proposed job would be to research and develop advanced sensor technologies and new data-driven guidance to monitor heavy metal levels in water and commercial products. The I Iaddress provided in the petition is for a _______
I metals in food or the environment, insecticides in agriculture, biosafety with biodefense, etc. His RFE response included lengthy information about Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. Next, he mentioned that he would pursue a position as a post-doctoral fellow upon completion of his Ph.D., and he would pursue a position with a biotechnology company called I Ilocated in I California.
In denying the Petitioner's national importance claim, the Director mentioned that he made a material change to his proposed endeavor in his RFE response, and cited to Matter ofIzzumi, 22 I&N Dec. 169 (AAO 1998) (concluding a petitioner may not make a material change to a petition to make a deficient petition conform to service requirements).Tried to change the endeavor after filing The Director stated that the Petitioner must establish eligibility based on the proposed endeavor from his initial statement.
On appeal, the Petitioner states that his updated statement clarified his ongoing research and concrete plans for fulfilling his proposed endeavor to develop advanced sensor techs and data-driven guidance to reduce heavy metal poisoning across industries. He asserts that he did not make an abrupt change of his overarching petition but a supplementary statement to address the Director's concerns regarding his proposed endeavor's national importance. He claims that his elaboration of the proposed endeavor's national importance is not a major deviation from his proposal to develop advanced sensor technologies and data-driven guidance for reducing heavy metal poisoning across industries.
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890.
Here, the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is unclear. The Petitioner initially stated multiple times that his proposed endeavor is to develop advanced sensor technologies and new cutting-edge, data-driven guidance for public health authorities and industry watchdogs conducting monitoring of heavy metal levels in water and commercial products. He asserted that he would work at the office inl IMaryland, and he would work on other research projects. There was no mention that he would develop biosensors for the early detection of neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease to improve public health. However, in response to the RFE the Petitioner admitted that he was revising his proposed endeavor. The new proposed endeavor would be to develop miniature electrochemical biosensors for the early detection of neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease to improve public health. He then mentioned that the biosensors could be used for a myriad of other purposes, and that he would seek employment with a company, I Iupon completion of his post-doctorate fellowship.
The Petitioner's response significantly departed from the proposed endeavor he indicated in his initial filing. The initial proposed endeavor focused on developing technology to address heavy metal levels in water and commercial products. In the RFE response, the Petitioner transformed his proposed p. 4 endeavor to focus on developing technology for early detection of neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease to improve public health. Additionally, he changed the proposed location for his endeavor from the to a private company.
A petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit they are seeking at the time the petition is filed. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter ofIzummi, at 176. The Petitioner's RFE response constituted a materially different proposed endeavor, with a different purpose and proposed location where the endeavor would be performed. The Petitioner's materially significant transformation rendered his proposed endeavor ill-defined and amorphous. The Petitioner's reversal introduced ambiguity into his proposed endeavor which prevented analysis into its substantial merit or national importance.
The Dhanasar framework cannot be applied to two dueling proposed endeavors. A petitioner must identify the specific endeavor they propose to undertake. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the substantial merit and national importance of an endeavor when a Petitioner cannot consistently articulate the nature of the endeavor.
Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information regarding his proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that he meets the first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs of Dhanasar 's analytical framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision ofwhich is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.