The Petitioner, a senior research scientist, 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver ofthe required job offer, and thus ofa 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
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.
Ifa 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 EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. Based on the evidence in the record that the Petitioner possesses a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in industrial and systems engineering from thel lwe agree. The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. Based on our de novo review of the record, we agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar. Specifically, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first Dhanasar prong.
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. In determining national importance, "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and have stated that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." See id. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities, even in a field with substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational interests, did not rise to the level ofhaving national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893.
On the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Petitioner listed his occupation as artificial intelligence (AI) researcher and his proposed employment as "senior research scientist." He described his proposed endeavor as utilizing optimization techniques to develop more secure and accurate AI models in the technology and healthcare sectors. The Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor is to "utilize optimization and simulation techniques, in conjunction with privacy-enhancing methods, to actively develop and refine models that address issues of efficiency, accuracy, reliability, security, and privacy in the domains of computer systems/tech industries and healthcare informatics." The Petitioner claims that the endeavor is nationally important because "artificial intelligence has wide-ranging implications for all sectors of society and the effective integration of the technology is essential to protect national security." The Petitioner also stated that his proposed endeavor has notable implication for the healthcare sector as his research has "integrated advanced AI methods with public health data to identify patterns and policy optimizations which have enormous implications for improving public health safety."
We recognize the importance of artificial intelligence and agree with SCOPS that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. But 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 [petitioner] proposes to undertake." Id. Here, the Petitioner asserts that he has specific research p. 3 goals such as "developing compile-time circuit optimization and scheduling for Secure Multi-Party Computation (MPC) frameworks," and work on "differential private algorithms with an application to Markov model calibration." The Petitioner stated that he plans to publish findings and present research at premier conferences. Whilst the activities and research described in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor may add to a positive cumulative effect, the evidence in the record does not convincingly demonstrate that his activities and research have national or even global impact in his field, or broader implications rising to a level of national importance.No broader implications shown
In response to the request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted further clarification of his proposed endeavor to include that his research "aims to resolve critical challenges in data security, algorithmic efficiency, and regulatory compliance across national security, healthcare, and digital infrastructure," and will "advance my researchIto uplTI Ieffort to support people and economy of the United States through advancements in ads ecosystem improvements." The Petitioner, however, does not adequately shed light on how the research, development, and refinement of algorithms to improve the privacy performance of online platforms would extend beyond the entities in healthcare and computer systems domains seeking out those services. The language used by the Petitioner does not clearly detail how he plans to carry out his research so that we can determine whether it is of national importance. Further, the Petitioner has not provided this level of focus or documentation to support his claims that his proposed research developing and refining privacy enhancing technology in digital advertising has the potential to impact the fields of healthcare, artificial intelligence, or other fields and industries. Instead, the Petitioner's evidence relating to the national importance of his intended research mostly explains his previous research and the importance of artificial intelligence. While demonstrating the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, it does not support or demonstrate its prospective potential impact nationally, or even globally, or through broader implications rising to a level of national importance.
The record also includes recommendation letters from colleagues who are familiar with his previous research, relating to his development of modeling systems for HN viral load monitoring and his development of modeling transmission rates for the COVID-19 outbreak. His colleagues in the field focus on the Petitioner's previous research being useful to their research with general statements that the Petitioner's contributions in his field would be of value to the United States. However, the letters do not identify or address his specific proposed endeavor. Moreover, the Petitioner has not explained the relevance of his previous research to his proposed research, refining optimization algorithms to improve performance and data privacy in digital advertising. We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. See Matter ofCaron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988).
While USCIS recognizes specific evidentiary considerations relating to the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), "the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. We acknowledge the overall value of the advancement of the artificial intelligence industry and attracting qualified professionals in related careers, and strengthening our nation's technology, particularly technology recognized as critical and p. 4 emerging, but their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular. See id.
Here, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor relates to fields identified as critical and emerging technologies. However, in all cases, including those involving STEM-focused endeavors, it is the Petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. In Dhanasar, we highlighted that while the field of STEM education may be of national importance, the duties of a STEM teacher in a classroom would not necessarily be of national importance because the impact that would flow from the teacher's activities would not sufficiently extend beyond the students sitting in their classroom. See 26 I&N Dec. at 893 (stating"[ w ]hile STEM teaching has substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational interests, the record does not indicate by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner would be engaged in activities that would impact the field of STEM education more broadly.")
Finally, the Petitioner has not established that the endeavor would have a "a significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or otherwise reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. The Petitioner did not submit sufficient documentation regarding the economic impact of the proposed endeavor.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
We conclude that the evidence in its totality, including his past research work, his support letters, and the articles and reports submitted, do not demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor, as required by the first Dhanasar prong, he has not demonstrated that he 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 the remaining eligibility requirements for the requested national interest waiver. 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 bas not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he 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 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.