The Petitioner, a Ph.D. student in informatics, 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).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is 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.
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.
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
Analysis
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. Based upon the evidence in the record that the Petitioner possesses a Ph.D. in political science, we agree. 2 The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest under the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar.
Regarding the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver, SCOPS determined that the Petitioner established only the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor. SCOPS found that the Petitioner did not establish the endeavor's national importance, that she is well-positioned to advance it, or that, on balance, a waiver of the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification On appeal, the Petitioner contends that SCOPS erred by mischaracterizing or ignoring relevant evidence in the record, misapplying the Dhanasar framework and relevant provisions in the USCIS Policy Manual, and conflating the proposed endeavor with the Petitioner's proposed employment as a research scientist. Upon de novo review and for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor and we will dismiss the appeal on that basis.
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to develop human-centered artificial intelligence (AI) systems that enhance the integration of human cognitive and behavioral nature with AI in order to promote safer and more equitable AI applications across healthcare, finance, and education sectors. At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working toward a Ph.D. in informatics frot11 I The Petitioner emphasized that her proposed endeavor is her "overarching goal for [her] research career" and that she intends to pursue it regardless of her specific place of employment; however, she stated that upon completion of her degree, she intends to pursue a position as a research scientist at Google. The Petitioner also stated that her research would continue to be circulated in the field through peerreviewed publications in conference proceedings and academic journals.
In response to SCOPS' request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided an updated personal statement in which she maintained that her future research will "focus on developing AI systems that are safe, fair, and aligned with human values." The Petitioner also discussed three specific research projects that she intends to undertake. She did not repeat her contention that she intends to seek a position at Google specifically but instead stated that she was "actively exploring research scientist roles at leading U.S. commercial and nonprofit organizations, as well as postdoctoral opportunities at academic and industry-affiliated research institutions." The Petitioner claimed that "[t]hese organizations have robust research programs focused on AI safety, ethics, and alignment." 2 The record shows that the Petitioner also possesses a master's degree in political science and a master's degree in data science.
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 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. 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." Id.
First, we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that SCOPS erred by conflating the Petitioner's proposed employment as a research scientist with her proposed endeavor. The Petitioner points to SCOPS' findings, for example, that the Petitioner did not establish "how a single [r]esearch [ s ]cientist" could have national implications for the field, that the Petitioner did not offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her work as a research scientist "would have implications beyond her future employer(s) and clientele" to impact the field more broadly, and that her work would primarily "benefit her future employer(s) and customers."Benefits limited to an employer or its clients The Petitioner contends that this standard is too stringent because it implies that a single researcher would never be able to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. The Petitioner farther claims that because she intends to disseminate her research in the field through conference proceedings and in academic journals that the proposed endeavor is not limited to her potential employer and has the potential to broadly impact the field. We recognize that an individual's proposed endeavor differs from their occupation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (explaining that an endeavor is more specific than the general occupation and that we focus on what the person will be doing rather than the specific job title or occupational classification). Nevertheless, we agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner's intended employment is relevant insofar as it may influence the potential prospective impact of an endeavor. See id. (stating that when explaining their endeavor, the petitioner should clearly lay out the potential direct impacts of the endeavor and whether the endeavor will be furthered through the course of the person's duties at a particular employer or in some other way). Whether a research scientist is pursuing their proposed endeavor through employment at Google or in an academic setting may be material to evaluating the endeavor's potential prospective impact, and therefore whether the record establishes national importance.
Here, the Petitioner claims that she may pursue her proposed endeavor through employment with an academic institution, a nonprofit research institution, or a commercial private employer. This impedes our ability to ascertain the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's future work. Nevertheless, even accepting the Petitioner's claim that however she pursues her endeavor, she will do so by publishing and presenting research that will be disseminated in the field, we conclude that the record is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor for the reasons discussed below.
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the evidence in the record establishes the national importance of the endeavor, referring specifically to the reports about the economic benefits of AI, her letters of recommendation, and the evidence that her endeavor relates to a critical and emerging technology (CET) and that it aligns with U.S. federal government priorities such as those described by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding transparency and accountability in AI systems.
The record does include a publication from NIST that describes measures for developers to take to ensure trustworthy and responsible use of AI. The record also contains a report from the International Monetary Fund discussing AI as a solution to global economic challenges and excerpts ofarticles from PwC and the International Data Corporation on Al's potential contribution to GDP and the global economy. The record also includes a survey that shows that Americans are distrustful of AI and a 2025 memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget directing executive agencies to implement "minimum risk management practices" for AI. While these articles and reports do demonstrate the potential impact that AI may have on the global economy and some of the considerations in the responsible use and development ofAI, we conclude that they are not sufficiently probative as to the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor. Specifically, this evidence does not demonstrate a sufficiently direct connection between her proposed area of research and any potential broad impacts on the field of AI or the responsible use of AI that would rise to the level of national importance.
As a comparison, the petitioner in Matter ofDhanasar demonstrated that he was conducting 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. In addition, he submitted evidence that he would continue his research into designing and developing propulsion systems in nano-satellites, rocket-propelled ballistic missiles, and single-stage-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. The evidence in the record here does not provide the same connection between the Petitioner's proposed research endeavor and a potential broad impact on the field.Past record does not show influence or success
Similarly, we conclude that the Petitioner's letters ofrecommendation do not sufficiently establish the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor. For instance, Dr. H. K., 3 professor atl I I land the Petitioner's Ph.D. advisor, discusses some of the Petitioner's past research and her background. Dr. H. K. asserts that the Petitioner is "a valuable asset to the United States research community" and that she is "integral to the goal" of ensuring ethics in AI. Dr. H. K. also claims that the Petitioner is "helping developers harness the full power of AI in a way that is truly beneficial to society." While Dr. H.K. speaks highly of the Petitioner, he does so in mostly general terms. Moreover, Dr. H. K. does not discuss the Petitioner's future proposed endeavor nor the Petitioner's three intended research projects and their national importance. Dr. H. K. also does not support the Petitioner's claim that pursuing her endeavor through a position as a research scientist, whether at Google or at another employer, would provide the potential for the endeavor to broadly impact the field.
Finally, we conclude that the proposed endeavor's relation to a STEM field, and specifically a CET, does not establish its national importance. In support of this claim, the Petitioner references the U.S. National Science and Technology Council's 2024 Critical and Emerging Technologies List Update, which includes the field of AI, including technologies for "improving AI safety, trust, security, and 3 We use initials to protect the individual's privacy. p. 5 responsible use." While USCIS recognizes specific evidentiary considerations relating to STEM degrees and fields, especially those in focused CET's, "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)(4). We acknowledge the overall value of the advancement of AI and the responsible and safe use of AI, but the importance of this field does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular. See id. The importance of an industry or field is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework. As discussed above, the evidence submitted to support her claims does not discuss the Petitioner's specific research work or establish its national importance. The Petitioner has not provided supporting evidence to understand how her proposed endeavor would advance STEM technologies, including any critical and emerging technologies, with sufficiently broad potential implications that would rise to the level of national importance.
The Petitioner has described her intended goal of aligning AI systems with human values and has summarized three different proposed research projects, but she has not provided the level of specific details or documentation as required under Matter ofDhanasar to support her claims that her proposed research projects have the potential to have the claimed impact on the field of AI, its ethical use, or its alignment with human values. The Petitioner mainly relies on her statements, without sufficient corroborating evidence, to characterize her proposed research work as valuable for advancing the field. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. As the Petitioner has not done so here, she has not sufficiently established that her proposed endeavor in the United States has national importance under the first Dhanasar prong.
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate 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.