immigrant classification for the Beneficiary, an electrical engineer, 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).
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 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification (their own in the case of a self-petition; the beneficiary's in the case of a job offer), as either 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, the petitioner must then establish eligibility for 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. Matter ofDhanasar 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.
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
Analysis
SCOPS determined that the Beneficiary qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, based upon obtaining the foreign equivalent of a master's degree in electrical engineering. SCOPS denied the petition, however, finding that the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's eligibility under any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Based on our de novo review of the record, we agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor and therefore has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver.
The Beneficiary's proposed endeavor is to continue his electrical engineering-informed circuit design research on the development of advanced process nodes and design-technology co-optimization (DTCO) processes for use in semiconductor manufacturing. The Beneficiary intends to pursue this proposed endeavor through his continued employment with the Petitioner.
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Id. 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.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS disregarded probative evidence establishing the Beneficiary's eligibility and failed to apply the preponderance ofthe evidence standard. The Petitioner claims that SCOPS did not consider the urgency for improved semiconductor chip design in the global artificial intelligence [ AI] race.No urgency shown The Petitioner contends that the evidence in the record establishes the national importance ofthe endeavor based upon the national urgency ofimproved semiconductor chip design, as established by federal government priorities, articles from the Semiconductor Industry Association, public statements from the White House, and news articles. The Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary's patent and patent applications are evidence of his nationally important work.
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS erred by not considering either these patents or the importance of his role with the Petitioner in determining whether the Beneficiary is well-positioned to advance the endeavor.
On de novo review and for the reasons discussed below, we agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor. First, we acknowledge the evidence in the record ofthe importance ofsemiconductor technology and the critical role of semiconductors in nearly every aspect of computing and technology. We farther acknowledge the Petitioner's significant leading position in the semiconductor foundry market. We do not dispute the credible evidence establishing these claims. Nevertheless, in determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or p. 3 profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the record lacks sufficient probative, credible evidence demonstrating the potential prospective impact of the Beneficiary's specific endeavor as an employee of the Petitioner. For example, the Petitioner describes the proposed endeavor as requiring the Beneficiary to be "a leader" in its efforts to develop improvements in DTCO, a process that seeks to improve the power, performance, and area in chip design. But the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support this claim. The record does not establish, for example, where within the company, or on what specific project teams, the Beneficiary's role is situated, or what the Beneficiary's specific responsibilities are in regard to the Petitioner's goals in improving DTCO.
Second, we conclude that the evidence related to the Beneficiary's patented work is not sufficiently supportive of the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner asserts on appeal that SCOPS disregarded the evidence ofthe Beneficiary's patent and patent applications in considering the national importance of the Beneficiary's endeavor. The Petitioner submitted evidence from the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office that shows the Beneficiary, along with several others, as inventors on a granted patent application that is assigned to the Petitioner. The Petitioner also provided evidence of two other patent applications still under review that include the Beneficiary as one ofseveral inventors. As a general matter, while an individual's achievements in the field, such as awarded patents for their work, may be relevant in some circumstances in establishing the potential prospective impact of the endeavor, the focus of the first prong is on the proposed endeavor itself and not the individual. See id. at 890. Evidence of an individual's knowledge, skills, and record of success in related or similar efforts generally relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national" and whether they are well-positioned to advance it.Proposed endeavor too vague Id. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that an individual's record of success in prior work could be relevant to the potential prospective impact of a proposed endeavor.
Here, however, the evidence in the record is not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor based upon the awarded patent and patent applications. The Beneficiary is one of a team of inventors listed on the patent applications and the record does not provide farther information to demonstrate the Beneficiary's specific contributions to these projects. Additionally, the Petitioner claims that these designs are "innovative" and that they reduce power consumption or improve performance. But the evidence in the record does not establish whether or to what extent there is interest in adopting or implementing these designs as part of the Petitioner's processes or its clients' processes.No interest from users, customers or investors The record also does not establish what specific potential impact these designs may have on the field. For example, although the record contains support letters from individuals in the field who speak highly ofthe Beneficiary, the record does not contain support letters from any clients of the Petitioner describing their interest in the Beneficiary's specific work or the potential impact of that work on their technology or products.
Finally, we conclude that the USCIS Policy Manual does not, as the Petitioner contends, provide support for the conclusion that the Beneficiary's work with the Petitioner is nationally important.
Here, the Petitioner points to the language in the Policy Manual that a petitioner may be able to demonstrate national importance through the submission of relevant evidence that demonstrates "a p. 4 novel and important manufacturing or operational process," and asserts that the patent applications are such evidence. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual.
But as discussed above, the evidence in the record does not establish that the patent applications relate to processes that are or may potentially be "novel and important" to the Petitioner's processes, to those of its clients, or to the field at large. While we acknowledge that the evidence, particularly of the awarded patent, demonstrates a degree of novelty, the existence of a patent and of filed patent applications are not sufficient, on their own, to demonstrate either the impact of the patented work itself, or to help demonstrate the potential prospective impact to the Beneficiary's endeavor. 2
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor. Because the Petitioner has not established the national importance requirement ofthe first prong ofthe Dhanasar framework, it has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary is 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. 3 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).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not established the national importance requirement of the first prong ofDhanasar. We therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
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 of a 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.