The Petitioner, a senior data analyst, 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. § 1153(b)(2).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the 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.
Law
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) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&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 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.
National Interest Waiver
At initial filing, the Petitioner did not provide a proposed endeavor. In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner claimed:
As an expert in healthcare data analysis, I am developing advanced statistical and machine learning (ML)/ artificial intelligence (AI) models to identify diabetic patients at risk of Hemoglobin AlC (HbAlc) deterioration within 6-12 months. This project leverages ML and AI technologies to enhance diabetes care through predictive analytics, personalized treatment recommendations, and real-time monitoring -ensuring improved glycemic control. My work aims to advance precision medicine in managing HbAlc.
The core of my approach lies in analyzing historical HbAlc trends, medication adherence, as well as clinical and lifestyle factors using advanced AI techniques. The goal is to recommend personalized diagnostic and treatment plans, as well as intervention strategies, while employing predictive analytics to detect HbAlc deterioration at an early stage.
Additionally, I am working on implementing remote patient monitoring solutions to reduce hospital readmissions and prevent the progression of chronic diabetes.
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for any ofthe three prongs under the Dhanasar framework. As it pertains to the second prong, it shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner in order to determine whether the individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he is well positioned to do so.
The record contains the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, educational credentials, written material, and reference letters. 2 For the reasons discussed below, the record supports the Director's determination that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research under Dhanasar 's second prong.
The Petitioner indicates that he possesses a master ofarts de ree in finance from and a master of arts degree in mathematics from .______________. USCIS considers an advanced degree, particularly a Ph.D. in a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) field tied to the proposed endeavor and related to work furthering a critical and emerging technology or other STEM area important to U.S. competitiveness or national security, an especially positive factor to be considered along with other evidence for purposes of the assessment under the second prong. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. However, a degree in and of itself is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the 2 In his RFE response, the Petitioner submitted evidence of his receipt of an I lforl ~ however, the Petitioner received the award after the filing of the initial filing and will not be considered. An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and must continue to be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) p. 3 proposed endeavor. Id. Although the Petitioner holds two master degrees, the totality of the evidence in the record, as discussed below, does not show that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Furthermore, in Dhanasar, the record established that the petitioner held multiple graduate degrees including "two master of science degrees, in mechanical engineering and applied physics, as well as a Ph.D. in engineering." Id. at 891. We look to a variety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and education is merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding.
The Petitioner also claims that he presented at two conferences and published two articles, including codeveloping "three copyrighted math games."3 However, the Petitioner did not show how his limited publication or presentation history represents a level of his success in the field. Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish that his material garnered any attention from the field or otherwise reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar 's second prong.No interest from users, customers or investors In addition, the Petitioner offers several recommendation letters.4 Overall, the letters indicate the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and claims its potential benefits, such as "[t]hese models could be a game changer for patients with Diabetes" (T-M-) and "[h ]is contributions are not only of immense academic value but also hold transformative potential for the healthcare industry" (S-K-). However, the issue for this criterion is whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor rather than the importance or possible impact of the endeavor, which relates more to prong one. Furthermore, although the letters praise the Petitioner, such as "scholars such as [the Petitioner] show great promise to what can be accomplished" (K-L-), the letters do not further elaborate and sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field. Moreover, the letters praise the Petitioner and repeat the requirements ofDhanasar claiming that he "is very well positioned to advance this project" (J-A-H-) without detailing how the Petitioner has situated himself to advance his endeavor.Proposed endeavor too vague The lack ofspecificity in the letters does not show how his work has affected the field or industry demonstrating a history ofaccomplishment, well positioning himself to advance his proposed endeavor.
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has written some material while pursuing his education, but he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. We examine the factors set forth in Dhanasar to determine whether, for instance, the individual's progress towards achieving the goals of the proposed research, record of success in similar efforts, or generation of interest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890. The Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently demonstrated his past work has served as an impetus for progress in the field or it has generated substantial positive discourse in the industry.Past record does not show influence or success Nor does the evidence otherwise show his work constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing his work.
Conclusion
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor as required by the second prong ofthe Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of the Petitioner's 3 See the Petitioner's curriculum vitae.
eligibility under the first and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful 5 purpose.
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, 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.S(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.