The Petitioner, an applied linguist, 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. § l 153(b)(2).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that while the Petitioner established his qualification for the underlying classification, he did not demonstrate that 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 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 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
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
The Petitioner indicated in the support letter that his proposed endeavor is to continue his research on "collecting and investigating naturally occurring data from human subjects and insights from popular culture utilizing discourse analysis tools in order to understand, formulate timely interventions, and bring light to the experience of marginalized populations, including but not limited to black, indigenous, people of color, women, and queer individuals." He farther stated that to progress his endeavor, he will utilize his "extensive experience with critical discourse analysis, corpus logistics techniques, the discourse-historical approach, socio-cultural linguistics theories, conversation analysis, multimodal discourse analysis, the feminist media studies framework, intersectionality framework, and language and sexuality theories."
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and 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 889-90.
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor to examine naturally occurring discourse and cultural narratives to uplift marginalized voices and inform interventions concerning social inequality carries substantial merit. The record demonstrates that the Petitioner's work seeks to promote greater understanding of the lived experiences of historically underrepresented communities. We acknowledge the inherent scholarly and social value of this work and therefore find that the endeavor has substantial merit. Here, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we noted that "[ a ]n 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. at 889. While Dhanasar does not require a petitioner to show how a proposed endeavor's methodology or process differs from or improves upon those already available in the United States, this information is, nevertheless, relevant to the question of whether an undertaking would have national or even global implications within the field to support its national importance.
In support of his claim, the Petitioner stated that his research "directly contributed to creating more inclusive societies, improving quality oflife for underserved populations, and advancing social justice on a global scale." He indicated that his research has specific implications for the national interest p. 3 such as "eliminating racial wealth disparities and increasing women's economic contributions in the workforce" that has the potential to boost the U.S. gross domestic product and "directly address systematic barriers and strengthen the U.S. economy's competitiveness in the global market." The Petitioner, however, does not adequately detail how providing his services as a linguist would have such broader impact in the industry that it rises to the level of national importance.No broader implications shown
To demonstrate national importance, the proposed endeavor must extend beyond the Petitioner's immediate academic or professional interests and must have broader implications impacting the United States at a national level. This may include evidence that the work is likely to influence national policies, benefit national institutions, or otherwise affect the field of endeavor on a large scale. In support of the petition, the Petitioner submitted evidence of scholarly activity, including authorship of three peer-reviewed journal articles and six sole-authored conference abstracts. The record also reflects that these publications have received 12 citations. While these accomplishments show that the Petitioner is active in academic discourse, the quantity and impact of the citations do not, in this case, rise to the level of national influence. For example, the evidence does not show that the Petitioner's findings have informed governmental action, shaped public policy, or been adopted by national organizations or institutions.
Academic recognition alone, particularly when limited in reach and citation impact, is not sufficient to establish national importance without accompanying evidence of the endeavor's practical influence outside scholarly circles. The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's work has had, or is expected to have, a substantial national effect in terms of informing real-world interventions, policy development, or systemic change. Although the themes addressed in the Petitioner's research are socially significant and relevant to ongoing national conversations about equity and representation, the Petitioner has not shown that his particular endeavor is poised to effectuate such outcomes on a national scale.
Further, while the submitted letters of support make sweeping claims that the Petitioner's endeavor would have a significant national impact, the letter does not offer specific details on how the Petitioner's endeavor would accomplish these goals or how any impact would have broader implications. Further, while the letters of support from the Petitioner's former colleagues praise the Petitioner's performance in his past roles, personal attributes, expertise, and past contributions, these are considerations under Dhanasar 's second prong. The letters lack detail regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and its specific impact thereof, including discussion of any potential broader implications of his future work.Proposed endeavor too vague Without more, opinions and support letters provide little probative evidence of the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar 's first prong.
The Petitioner also has not shown that his proposed endeavor has a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation.Job creation or economic claims unsupported The Petitioner has not offered sufficient, specific evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact directly attributable to his future work. The Petitioner asserts that his research will help address systemic social barriers and, as a result, strengthen the competitiveness of the U.S. economy in the global market. However, the Petitioner has not provided documentation or analysis showing that his endeavor is likely to result in significant economic impact or job creation for U.S. workers. While social inclusion and equity are commendable goals, there is no indication that the research itself will produce commercially viable outputs, stimulate industry growth or yield economic benefits ofnational scope. His statements about long-term societal impact do not, without substantiating evidence, satisfy p. 4 the requirement that the proposed endeavor has a national impact. Without adequate evidence demonstrating any specific U.S. economic impact, job creation, or other significant economic activity directly attributable to his future work, the Petitioner's claims that his endeavor will provide substantial, direct positive economic effects is unpersuasive. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.
The petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 7 5. Because the Petitioner has not established through sufficient evidence in the record that his proposed endeavor meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining issues concerning whether he has established eligibility under the remaining two Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25.
Conclusion
The Petitioner has 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.