The Petitioner, an electrical engineer, 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).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 oJChawathe, 25 l&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 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. An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that ofa bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id.
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 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 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.
National Interest Waiver
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. We agree with this determination. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework.
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with SCOPS' conclusion that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit as it falls within the range of areas of substantial merit, namely science and technology. Id. However, while the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not establish its national importance. The Petitioner indicates she is an expert in the field of electrical engineering and that her proposed endeavor is to "continue research on inventing state-of-the-art power conversion technologies in order to enhance efficiency and minimize the size of power conversion systems for applications in servers, data centers, electric vehicles, microgrids, and renewable energy systems." The Petitioner stated that her proposed endeavor has broad implications for the United States, asserting that 60% of the energy produced by the country is lost during conversion. The Petitioner explained that her "innovative research focuses on enhancing energy efficiency in power converters, essential for reducing energy waste, advancing clean energy systems, and supporting a shift towards more efficient power generation and distribution technologies." She further emphasized that her proposed endeavor would contribute to the United States' decarbonization goals including the prevalence of zero emissions vehicles. The Petitioner indicated that she would pursue her proposed endeavor as a member of the research and development staff at,___________. where she had worked since 2023. She noted the company "is a recognized leader in the industry and is known for innovative contributions to power and energy technology" and that she would continue to circulate her research through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and technical reports.
SCOPS later issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor would have national importance. SCOPS reasoned that the provided evidence did not establish that the Petitioner's work would significantly impact her field or constitute an original contribution of major significance. SCOPS also emphasized that the record did not include letters from interested U.S. government agencies or quasi-governmental entities demonstrating that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would advance critical and emerging technology important to maintaining the Unites States' technological prominence. As such, SCOPS requested that the Petitioner submit additional evidence including a more detailed description of her p. 3 proposed endeavor and why it had national importance, and how it would have national implications within her field, significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have substantial positive economic effects, broadly enhance societal welfare, and/or impact a matter that a government entity described as having national importance.
In response, the Petitioner stated that she planned "to utilize [her] extensive experience with wide bandgap devices, advanced cooling techniques, control theory, high frequency magnetics design and power supply design." More specifically, the Petitioner pointed to her work "modeling, analyzing and testing three-level GaN based multi-level PFC for EV [electric vehicle] and datacenter applications." She indicated that this research had national importance since it aimed to "achieve high efficiency in data center power supplies" whose electricity consumption had doubled nationally since 2024. The Petitioner also asserted that this work would "advance the US' AI computing and EV industries by reducing losses and size conversion stages." The Petitioner emphasized that more energy efficient hybrid and electric vehicles would support the national economy and the diversity of the U.S. transportation fleet thereby strengthening national energy security and increasing resilience to natural disasters and fuel supply disruptions. She also stated that the national importance of her research would be in building fast and efficient charging stations and EV s which is critical to their widespread adoption.
In addition, the Petitioner discussed her plan to work on "modeling, simulating, analyzing and testing modulation and control techniques for reactive power transfer in vehicle-to-grid (V2G) and grid-tovehicle (G2V) cases for bidirectional chargers" and her intent to "compare various topologies and modulation techniques for efficiency and circuit simplicity." She indicated that this research was aimed at advancing "capabilities necessary for the [United States] to cohesively accomplish transportation electrification, grid modernization, renewable energy resources integration, and climate change mitigation and adaptation" as well as enhancing "energy security and resilience, ensuring equitable access to all the benefits of electric transportation." The Petitioner suggested that this was consistent with the United States' "electric infrastructure mission" helping it fulfill its "societal and environmental obligations." The Petitioner stated that her research would give U.S. EV and technology companies an edge on global competitors by saving energy from the grid through enabling EV s to transfer energy back to the grid and allow consumers to power "small loads like entertainment systems or medical emergency equipment from the car battery." The Petitioner reiterated that she planned on continuing her work through her research and development position withl I ~ and that she would continue to circulate her work by publishing at conferences and journals relevant to the industry.
In concluding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance ofhis proposed endeavor, SCOPS determined she did not establish that her techniques or methodologies were innovative or distinct as necessary to have a broad impact on her field.No broader implications shown SCOPS emphasized that the Petitioner's work with one company did not reflect the far-reaching implications of her proposed endeavor on a national scale.
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that SCOPS was preoccupied with her employment rather than her proposed endeavor which she asserts will extend beyond her employment through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and technical reports. The Petitioner further asserts that SCOPS did not properly apply Dhansar by requiring her to show that her research already had a p. 4 significant impact on her field, noting it only requires her to demonstrate a potential impact. She also indicated that SCOPS improperly required that her proposed endeavor reflect novelty or innovation in her field, a requirement not reflected in Dhansar. The Petitioner farther states that SCOPS did not sufficiently analyze the submitted evidence including her personal statement, as well as provided recommendation letters.
In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting 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.
The Petitioner provided a wide array of potential prospective national impacts in differing, large industries and societal issues. However, the Petitioner provided insufficient detail and documentation to substantiate that her proposed endeavor would have this wide-ranging impact on U.S. society.Proposed endeavor too vague For instance, in support of the petition, the Petitioner and those who drafted letters of recommendation indicated that her proposed endeavor would have a national level impact on servers, data centers, electric vehicles, microgrids, and renewable energy systems. Likewise, the Petitioner asserted potential prospective national level impacts on the reduction of energy waste, the advancement of clean energy systems, U.S. decarbonization goals, and the efficiency ofEVs. Later in response to the RFE, the Petitioner farther expanded the asserted potential prospective national impact ofher proposed endeavor, indicating it would advance both the U.S. AI computing and EV industries, while supporting the national economy through more energy efficient hybrid and electric vehicles. She farther asserted potential prospective national impacts on the diversity of the U.S. transportation fleet, national energy security, increased resilience to natural disasters and fael supply disruptions, and the widespread adoption of EVs. Still farther, the Petitioner discussed potential national level impacts on climate change mitigation, and equitable access to electric transportation, as well as giving the U.S. EV and technological companies a global edge on competitors and allowing consumers to power smaller electronics and medical equipment from their vehicles.
As noted by the Petitioner on appeal, she is required to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor will have national or even global implications within a particular field or the significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare or the advancement of valuable technology or a field of study. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. However, the Petitioner's wide-ranging assertions as to potential prospective national impact crossing numerous industries and societal issues leaves substantial question as to whether her proposed research would have a significant impact on any of them, including EV vehicles, data center efficiency, decarbonization, AI, resilience to natural disasters, among others. To illustrate, the Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that 60% of U.S. energy lost during energy conversion and that she will directly contribute to the U.S. goal of having 100% zero emissions vehicles by 2030. Without more specific probative evidence, it is uncertain that the Petitioner's proposed research would have a national level impact on this massive energy loss or in creating zero emissions vehicles nationwide. A mere potential contribution to various matters of national-level interest does not establish that a proposed endeavor is of national importance. The p. 5 proposed endeavor must have broad and significant national implications. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value. See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications).
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. In addition, he submitted evidence reflecting 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 provided 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 fonding from a government entity for his research. Id. Here, the Petitioner's assertions of potential prospective national importance are not sufficiently specific, based on different potential avenues of research, and there is little indication that there is specific interest from the U.S. government regarding the advancement of this research or that her research would contribute significantly to the nation's ability to compete internationally in the field of power conversion.No interest from users, customers or investors SCOPS farther discussed in the denial the Petitioner's proposed employment withl I D and concluded that she did not sufficiently demonstrate how her proposed endeavor would extend beyond her employer to effectuate a national-level impact. The Petitioner contends on appeal that her proposed endeavor is separate from her employment and that her research would be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and technical reports. However, benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance. At issue is whether the petitioner can demonstrate that the person's own individual endeavor stands to have broader implications, such as for a field, a region, or the public at large. For instance, an individual developing a particular technology for use or sale by a given company may not be able to establish national importance based on evidence that this technology will have benefits for the company or its clients alone. To establish broader public or commercial implications at a level consistent with national importance for this field or industry, the petitioner could demonstrate, through the submission of relevant evidence, widespread interest in adoption or licensing of the technology, a novel and important manufacturing or operational process, or how the technology stands to impact the development of similar technology by other companies. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Thus, the substantive nature of the Petitioner's planned employment is directly relevant to considering her eligibility under Dhanasar 's first prong. However, the Petitioner's has not sufficiently clarified how her proposed employment with an electronics company would also allow her to disseminate research in her field beyond the scope of her employment, leaving question as to its potential prospective national impact. For instance, it is not clear whether the Petitioner's research would be owned and/or controlled by her employer and whether she would be granted permission to publish this research and present it at conferences, particularly since she indicated she would work on the company's research and development staff. As the Petitioner would be working with a private company, it is not apparent how internal research discoveries would be made publicly available rather than maintained as proprietary information, p. 6 particularly since she indicates that her employer is a recognized leader in the industry known for innovative contributions to power and energy technology. The record does not establish how her proposed endeavor will have broader implications rising to the level of national importance. Merely stating that her proposed endeavor would be separate from her employment without a detailed explanation as to how this would be the case is not sufficient to demonstrate it would have a national benefit beyond her employer. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.Inconsistencies in the record Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988).
The Petitioner claims that her proposed endeavor aligns with national government initiatives involving the advancement of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics technology [STEM], in particular energy conversion, recognized by the U.S. National Science and Technology Council (NTSC) 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). We acknowledge the overall value of the advancement of energy conversion and the other technology researched by the Petitioner, particularly technology recognized as critical and emerging, but their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's particular proposed endeavor. See id. The Petitioner has not sufficiently established how her work in her STEM technology would have sufficiently broad potential implications for her field rising to the level of national importance. Moreover, the Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently direct connection between her proposed research and the asserted national level impacts on various aspects of large national industries and societal issues.
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that he has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under Dhanasar's second and third 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.