The Petitioner, a digital marketing and media company, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification for the Beneficiary, a data scientist, 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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish that the Beneficiary is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish that the beneficiary is 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 the beneficiary's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate that the beneficiary merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the 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
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
SCOPS determined that the Beneficiary qualifies for the EB-2 visa classification as an individual holding an advanced degree based on his master of science degree in analytics froml I I Iand we agree. SCOPS further determined that although the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, that the Beneficiary is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus a labor certification.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest. For the reasons we will discuss below, we determine that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
The Petitioner proposed to employ the Beneficiary as a principal data scientist for their data science team. The Beneficiary obtained a bachelor's degree in international business froml L Iin United Kingdom in 2016 and a master's degree in.--a_n_al...t..y_ti_c_s_fr_o_m_,l=,-----~J I..... ________.I in 2018. The Beneficiary previously worked at I Ias a business operations associate from 2014 to 2015, and his present employment for the Petitioner as a principal data scientist began in June 2018.
Regarding the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary intends to continue to work as a principal data scientist within the Petitioner's data science team and participate in ongoing projects, "developing new algorithms, data mapping systems, and text-embedding tools with the goal of creating highly profitable data classification and recommendation systems, which can better discern complex online consumer behaviors." In response to SCOPS' request for evidence, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary "endeavors to advance predictive data analytics and artificial intelligence tools in the United States" in order to "enhance user engagement, conversion rates, and financial outcomes for U.S. businesses, particularly in the digital marketing, finance, healthcare (through its joint venture), and consumer decision-making sectors."
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that SCOPS made erroneous conclusions of fact and law in its decision, failed to conduct a proper review of the evidence submitted, did not apply the preponderance of the evidence standard, and ignored critical documentation and mischaracterized detailed submissions. The Petitioner claims that SCOPS' decision is arbitrary and capricious.
Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner must prove eligibility for the requested immigration benefit by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375. Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the evidence must demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is "probably true," where the determination of "truth" is made based on the factual circumstances of each case. Id. at 376. Thus, USCIS must examine each piece of evidence for p. 3 relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. Id. When USCIS provides reasoned consideration to the petition and has made adequate findings, USCIS will not be required to specifically address each claim the petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for USCIS to address every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013); see also Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. US. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 ( 4th Cir. 1993). Here, although SCOPS did not specifically address each claim the Petitioner made or address each piece of evidence individually, the record reflects SCOPS' consideration of all evidence in the totality and supports SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor.
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. 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. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. An undertaking may have national importance, for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. Id. An 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 contends that SCOPS falsely characterized evidence of national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor. Specifically, the Petitioner argues (1) that the letters fromD I Iare detailed proof of the national scale impact of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor, (2) that SCOPS disregarded STEM impact of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor, and (3) that even though Dhanasar does not require a cost accounting, the file documents material cost and efficiency gains produced by the Beneficiary's systems and methods. The Petitioner asserts that the record, which includes independent expert economic analysis by I I the Petitioner's letter, evaluation, and equity awards, letters from the Beneficiary's peers, and corroborating press and market data, as a whole demonstrates that the Beneficiary's endeavor has national importance.
With respect to various articles and industry reports, the Petitioner claims that they were submitted to corroborate the scale and function of the consumer-facing platforms, such asl Ion which the Beneficiary's tools operate. When describing the Beneficiary's national scale deployments, the Petitioner asserts that they cited traffic analrics documenting 100 million monthly users on I I11 million users on Thd~---- and 7 million users onl I. When presenting evidence of economic and job creation impact, the Petitioner states that they relied on letters from I Iwhich claim revenue increases of $8 million and staffing and payroll expansion to 40 specialists across multiple states with a total payroll of more than $6 million. When discussing external adoption, the Petitioner asserts that they cited letters frorrJ I I I claiming double digit performance gains, millions of dollars in savings, and adoption of the Beneficiary's evaluation metrics into enterprise governance systems.
With regard to the claimed independent expert economic analysis by I Iin response to SCOPS' request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted! Iresume showing that he has 15 years of investment banking advisory and transactional experience, but the record does not contain any economic analysis froml I The Petitioner submitted a 49-page document titled "RFE Response Letter," dated May 2025, which includes a table of contents, footnotes with website addresses, and graphs from other sources, but this response letter does not provide the author(s), and the response letter provides the same or similar arguments made in the Petitioner's letter or their attorney's briefs in support of the Petitioner's visa petition. Because the RFE response letter does not provide the author(s) and the record does not include any economic analysis, the record is unclear whether the Petitioner is referring to the RFE response letter when mentioning independent expert economic analysis by I I Furthermore, repeating the language ofthe statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajj'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 10729, *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997).
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary "will focus on advancing predictive analytics and AI technologies in key sectors, like finance, healthcare, and e-commerce." The Petitioner asserts that in the finance sector, the Beneficiary "will directly enhance risk assessment, customer personalization, fraud detection, and operational efficiency" and that in the healthcare sector, the Beneficiary "will directly support the healthcare sector's ongoing transition towards a more proactive, AI-driven model of care" by "developing predictive algorithms to optimize decision-making and operational workflows." The Petitioner farther asserts that in the e-commerce sector, the Beneficiary's work "will enhance user engagement, optimize consumer experience, and drive sales performance by leveraging predictive analytics to understand customer behavior in real-time."
The Petitioner asserts that various articles and industry reports corroborate the scale and function of the consumer-facing platforms, such asl Ion which the Beneficiary's tools operate. The Petitioner also claims that traffic analytics documenting 100 million monthly users o~ I11 million users o~ Iand 7 million users onl Isupport the Beneficiary's national scale deployments. The record includes support letters from various individuals. For example, a letter from the executive director of personalization a~.___________.~tates that he "[has] put [the Beneficiary's] techniques to work in several high-visibility personalization projects across multiple banking use cases that have generated both customer and firm benefits." A letter from the vice president of data science atl Istates that the Beneficiary's "willingness to dissect successes and failures with peers means those gains do not stop at his own employer's boundary, but they propagate across the industry."
While the articles, industry reports, traffic analytics, and support letters may support the Beneficiary's professional achievements, contributions to his employer, and mentorship activities for his peers, they do not address his proposed undertaking and do not sufficiently explain how his proposed endeavor to continue to work for the Petitioner as a principal data scientist and participate in ongoing projects offer benefits that extend beyond his employer, their clients, and users of their digital marketing platforms to impact his field more broadly. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner's letter reflects their intention to continue to employ the Beneficiary as a principal data scientist for their data science team and the Beneficiary's intention to continue to work for the Petitioner and participate in ongoing projects and develop new algorithms, data mapping systems, and text-embedding tools to create p. 5 profitable data classification and recommendation systems for the Petitioner and their clients. However, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. The record does not contain sufficient information and evidence to explain how the Beneficiary's proposed activities to develop new algorithms, data mapping systems, and text-embedding tools to create profitable data classification and recommendation systems for his employer and their clients will have broader implications within the finance, healthcare, and e-commerce sectors. See id. Without sufficient documentary evidence of its broader impact, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.Proposed endeavor too vague
As for the economic value and job creation that the Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor will offer, the record does not contain sufficient supporting evidence.Job creation or economic claims unsupported The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's "work has the potential to create a ripple effect, expanding the use of advanced technologies across various sectors and generating high-skilled technical job opportunities" and this "will improve U.S. economic prospects and ensure the country maintai • ":\re edge in the rapidly evolving tech landscape." In his support letter, the president ofL_ ___.-.......,_,_........,....,___,_,,~ the Beneficiary's data-driven artificial intelligence solutions for two brands, The ._________. and I Ito increase their user engagement and conversions "have improved engagement by 25% and contributed a total revenue increase ofapproximately $8 million." A letter from a senior vice president ofl Iaffirms that the Beneficiary was "critical to the launch of a live AI chatbot named Serena, which has been deployed onl Isite" that "reaches almost 100 million people who are seeking medical information" and the Beneficiary's "AI chatbot increases their access to accurate information and their level of knowledge allowing them to improve their health." The letter also states that the Beneficiary "played a central role in scaling the AI Products team from 5 to 40 specialists over the course of just 18 months" and their collective annual payroll is approximately "$6.72 million" and these employees are based in North Carolina, South Carolina, Illinois, Michigan, Colorado, and New York, "spreading the economic impact across the country."
While the support letters demonstrate the Beneficiary's contributions to his employer, past accomplishments, and a record of success, his education, training, skills, knowledge, professional experience, and past accomplishments are relevant under the second prong of Dhanasar to support that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. See id. at 889. Here, the record lacks sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary's work as a data scientist will have an impact on his field at a level commensurate with national importance. See id. The Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to show that the Beneficiary's continued work on ongoing projects for the Petitioner will enable his employer and their clients to employ a significant population ofworkers in an economically depressed area or that his endeavor would offer a particular U.S. region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. See id. at 890. Accordingly, the record does not sufficiently show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance. The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary "will significantly contribute to the advance ofthe U.S. STEM field by leveraging his expertise in machine learning, predictive analytics, and consumer behavior modeling." While we recognize the importance of progress in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields and the essential role of persons with advanced STEM p. 6 degrees in fostering this progress, merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance ofthe proposed endeavor. For example, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence specifically mentioning the Beneficiary's work or discussing the government's interest in promoting the use of the Beneficiary's work on developing new algorithms, data mapping systems, and text-embedding tools to create profitable data classification and recommendation systems, such that it has "national or even global implications within a particular field." See id. at 889. The record lacks sufficient evidence to show that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor would help the United States to remain ahead of strategic competitors or adversaries where his work activities would contribute to the United States achieving or maintaining technology leadership or peer status among its allies and partners. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. In addition, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor is of national importance because "it aligns with key U.S. government initiatives aimed at advancing AI and data analytics across critical sectors." The Petitioner further states that "[b ]y developing transparent and accountable AI systems, such a~ !framework andl !algorithm, the [Beneficiary] will support federal priorities outlined in 0MB Memorandum M-24-10, the Enterprise AI Strategy, and the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)," all of which "emphasize ethical AI use, innovation, and enhancing U.S. leadership in emergency technologies."
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work. Instead, we focus on the specific endeavor that the beneficiary proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The referenced U.S. government initiatives and implementing policies and guidelines illustrate the importance of developing and adopting artificial intelligence driven technologies to enhance U.S. leadership in critical and emerging technologies. However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary's proposed work activities would impact the U.S. economy, national security, finance, healthcare, or e-commerce sector more broadly rather than benefiting his employer, their clients, and users of their digital marketing platforms. See id. As such, the Petitioner has not shown that the prospective impact of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Without sufficient documentary evidence of their broader impact, the Beneficiary's proposed work activities do not meet the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Lastly, the Petitioner expresses that "there is a very high demand for data scientists with [the Beneficiary's] abilities in artificial intelligence development, and an increasingly short supply in relation to the growing demand." While we acknowledge the growing demand for skilled professionals in STEM fields, like the Beneficiary, U.S. Department of Labor addresses worker shortages through the labor certification process. See 20 C.F.R. § 656, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A), 1182(p)(l). Therefore, a shortage of qualified professionals alone is not sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 885. Moreover, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage.Relied on a labor shortage
Because the record does not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's eligibility for a national interest waiver. Therefore, further analysis of his p. 7 eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose, and we will reserve these issues for future consideration should the need arise. 2
Conclusion
Although the Petitioner has shown that the Beneficiary is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and his proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance ofthe evidence that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor is ofnational importance. Accordingly, we conclude that the Beneficiary is ineligible 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.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 of a Form 1-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.