The Petitioner, a computer scientist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member ofthe 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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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.
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) ofthe 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 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).
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 2 The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. SCOPS determined that while the Petitioner demonstrated that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, he did not establish the endeavor is of national importance, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. SCOPS found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would primarily benefit his employer and its clients, adding that the record lacks evidence that the Petitioner would publish research that has the potential to broadly benefit his field.Benefits limited to an employer or its clients
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS abused its discretion by failing to consider the totality of the evidence and making incorrect conclusions of law and statements of the facts in analyzing the evidence. 3 We disagree with the Petitioner's assessment of SCOPS' decision. To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance of the evidence standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.; see also Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79- 80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, SCOPS acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted documents addressing the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor. Based on the record, SCOPS' decision is a reasoned interpretation and consideration ofthe evidence. The proposed endeavor, as described, and the evidence in the record do not support the Petitioner's assertions that the potential impact of his endeavor extends beyond his employer such that the implications of the endeavor rise to a level of national importance or have a broader impact on his field.No broader implications shown
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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.
The Petitioner claims that SCOPS erroneously conflated his proposed endeavor and his ongoing work as a computer scientist atl I. He maintains that his response to SCOPS' request for evidence (RFE) explained how his intended research would extend beyond his employer as it "is critical for advancing AI [ artificial intelligence] applications, contributing to a variety of nationally important industries, ranging from postal service and financial trading to precision medicine, environmental sustainability, education, and public welfare."
The Petitioner states his proposed endeavor is to "improv[e] the performance oflarge-scale, distributed data warehouses for data analytics and machine learning on the cloud in order to reduce data processing time, accelerate machine learning, and expedite the generation of business insights for companies utilizing the data warehouse product." He indicates that he would continue pursuing this endeavor and contends that while his position as a computer scientist atLJis a means for advancing the endeavor, the position itself is not the proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner points to his RFE response where he discussed his previous research, claiming that it enabled him to gain "broad exposure to a wide range of states [sic]-of-the-art machine learning techniques and [] hands-on expertise in designing novel deep learning models." He claimed that his prior research relates to two future research projects that he briefly described, stating that the proposed research "addresses critical challenges in the performance and efficiency of modem data warehouse systems"; his stated that his goal was to ensure that the research has national or global impact by seeking "open academic dissemination, commercialization, and patent protection."
The Petitioner, however, makes broad claims, without corroborating evidence, that his research would "strengthen[] the U.S. position in the global data warehousing and AI infrastructure markets." Despite submitting summaries of his intended projects, the Petitioner did not provide specific details or supporting evidence; rather, he highlighted the focus of his research, which is to modernize data warehouses through the use of artificial Ttelligrce, and he stated that he would pursue his research while working as a software developer for Although such work may demonstrate the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, it does not support or demonstrate its prospective potential impact nationally, or even globally, nor has the Petitioner established that his endeavor would have broader implications on his field, rising to a level of national importance.
As noted earlier, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the "specific endeavor." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. When analyzing the national importance of a proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's framework, we focus on the endeavor's prospective impact instead of limiting our analysis to a petitioner's employment at the time of filing. An endeavor is more specific than a general occupation and should include details of the types of work a petitioner intends to undertake and describe specific projects and goals. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. As a comparison, the petitioner in Dhanasar demonstrated that he conducted research and development in the field of air and space propulsion, more specifically, hypersonic propulsion systems involving speeds above Mach 5, and he had developed a novel method for accurately calculating hypersonic airflow. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 891-92. He also submitted evidence reflecting that he would continue his research in designing and developing propulsion systems in nano-satellites, rocket-propelled ballistic missiles, and singlestage-to-orbit vehicles and substantial supporting evidence of how his continued research would assist the United States in maintaining its advantage over other nations in hypersonic flight, including documentation reflecting his receipt of funding from a government entity for his research. Id. Here, the Petitioner summarized two research projects, but he has not provided the level of specific details or documentation as required under Dhanasar to support his claims that his proposed research projects have the potential to extend beyond his employer and impact the field of data management or other fields and industries. The Petitioner mainly relies on his own statements, without corroborating evidence, to characterize his research work as valuable for advancing the data management field. p. 4 However, he has not provided evidence to support his claims that his proposed research projects would advance his field more broadly or would be different from work typically performed by a computer scientist atl IThe Petitioner has not detailed or established with supporting evidence his plans to introduce novel technologies or advancements that may be disseminated to or adopted by others operating in the field or industry. A petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has not done so here. While the Petitioner established that pursing work as a computer scientist in a company focused on data management through the use of artificial intelligence has substantial merit, the record does not demonstrate the endeavor's prospective potential impact nationally or globally, or through broader implications rising to a level of national importance.
The Petitioner submitted a letter from a former colleague who describedOas "the largest vendor of! Iservices" and discussed the Petitioner's work "in the context of the I I I lcloud data warehouse service." Although the letter makes general statements about the Petitioner's contributions to "the most critical challenges in modern data warehouses," it refers to his previous research and does not identify or address the specific pTposel endeavor.Support letters generic or unsupported Furthermore, despite claiming that the Petitioner's "contribution extends beyond " the letter only discusses the benefits of the Petitioner's work to "organizations across the U.S. that rely on I I for daily data analytics and business intelligence,'! thereby indicating that the impact ofthe Petitioner's work would be limited to clients who use data management tool.
The Petitioner contends that his plans to disseminate his findings through scholarly publications and industry conferences show his endeavor would have broad national impact, beyond his employer. He points out that his previous research work was published in reputable industry publications and presented at industry conferences. While the Petitioner's previous research may help to understand his proposed endeavor, such previous work mainly relates to whether he is well-positioned to advance his endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong.
The Petitioner also claims that his proposed endeavor aligns with national government initiatives and previously submitted USCIS policy guidance recognizing the importance of advancing artificial intelligence for national security and progress in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). He previously emphasized that his endeavor involves research to advance STEM technologies, in particular artificial intelligence technologies, which are recognized by the U.S. National Science and Technology Council as being critical and emerging. While USCIS recognizes specific evidentiary considerations relating to STEM degrees and fields, "the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(2).
Here, much of the evidence in the record and the Petitioner's arguments focus on the importance of the data management field. For instance, the Petitioner submitted various articles and reports discussing data management and data management solutions, including the use ofartificial intelligence in data warehousing in the public and private sectors. This evidence, however, does not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed projects and their potential impact on the field or on specific government initiatives.Past record does not show influence or success Further, we acknowledge the overall value of the advancement of artificial intelligence, attracting qualified professionals in related careers, and strengthening our nation's technology, p. 5 particularly technology recognized as critical and emerging, but their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. See id.
As previously stated, the Petitioner has not sufficiently detailed his proposed research, or provided supporting evidence to convey an understanding of how his endeavor would advance STEM technologies with sufficiently broad potential implications for his field. Moreoverl the Pltitioner has not demonstrated that his specific undertaking ofworking as a computer scientist at with a focus on improving data management solutions through the use of artificial intelligence stands to have an impact beyond his prospective employer and its clients, or that his proposed research would otherwise have broader implications for data management, artificial intelligence, or other industries. Lastly, the Petitioner points to the denial where SCOPS stated, "With the initial filing it was found that the [P]etitioner's proposed endeavor would lead to benefits on the national scale." However, in making our determination in this matter, we have considered the highlighted statement within the context of SCOPS' discussion of the evidence and its conclusion stating that "Finally, it was found that the [P]etitioner had not satisfied the first prong of the Dhanasar framework." Having conducted a comprehensive analysis of the record, we find that the Petitioner placed undue emphasis on a statement that appears to contain an inadvertent error and does not reflect the essence of SCOPS analysis, which explains with sufficient clarity how the Petitioner fell short of satisfying the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not established his eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. SCOPS farther determined that while the Petitioner established that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong, he did not establish 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 under Dhanasar 's third prong.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner qualifies for the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. This identified basis for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, and therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments and eligibility under the second and third prongs of Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-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). Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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 1-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.