The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) auditor, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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) revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 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. 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) of the Act. Our precedent decision in 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 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.
Further, section 205 of the Act states the following regarding revocation of an approved petition: 'The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what [she] deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by [her] under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition."
Analysis
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. 2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. SCOPS revoked approval of the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that: (1) his proposed endeavor met the standard for national importance, 3 or (2) that on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor the individual proposes to undertake. In determining national importance, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 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 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.
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as an IT auditor at the. ______________.
I l. He stated that he plays "a crucial role by evaluating the Bank's cybersecurity risk assessment" and that in his proposed endeavor he will "spearhead the development of tools and process to protect the security of online banking systems." Ultimately, the Petitioner stated that he intends to "offer[] scalable solutions tailored to organizations of all sizes to enhance their online banking security" and explained that the key to this proposed endeavor is to integrate "evolving 2 The record shows that the Petitioner received a Master of Science Degree in cybersecurity and information assurance in 2023 froml !University.
AI and machine learning (ML) technologies with cybersecurity tools and mechanisms" to enable enhanced fraud detection among financial institutions.
In response to a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR), the Petitioner stressed that his endeavor is an "AIdriven cybersecurity initiative," which he deemed "not only a critical national security measure but also a significant driver of employment in the U.S. financial and technology sectors." The supporting evidence includes the Petitioner's multi-phase implementation plan, which states that by implementing AI-based fraud detection tools and cybersecurity monitoring systems, he will "generate substantial employment opportunities" which will include "5-10 AI engineers, data scientists, and machine learning specialists" in the initial phase of the endeavor, increasing to "20-30 cybersecurity professionals, software developers, and fraud detection analysts" in the next phase of operation, and ultimately creating "over 100+ new jobs" in the cybersecurity workforce. However, the Petitioner did not provide corroborating evidence in support of these projections or demonstrate that such future staffing levels would result in substantial economic benefits to the region or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
The implementation plan also states that the Petitioner would eventually establish an AI-cybersecurity consulting firm, but that in the meantime he would create an "AI-powered cybersecurity model" and form business partnerships that he would leverage to disseminate that model and ensure its use "by major banking institutions." As plainly stated in the Petitioner's response to a prior request for evidence, the endeavor will involve "offering customized solutions tailored to the unique needs of each bank or financial institution." It therefore does not appear that the benefits of using the Petitioner's cybersecurity products and services would extend beyond the businesses and institutions the Petitioner would serve. The record does not establish that the Petitioner would operate on such a scale as to create an impact at the national importance level or that his work in cybersecurity would result in an impact of regional or national importance.
The Petitioner also provided a recommendation letter from a colleague who described himself as a "seasoned security architect and industry expert with 1 7 years of experience in cybersecurity" and mentioned the Petitioner's "pivotal role" in a collaborative project and highlighted his "extensive knowledge" of the relevant subject matter. However, the letter does not adequately discuss the proposed endeavor, making only broad statements about the Petitioner's intent to develop AI-powered cybersecurity solutions within the scope of the banking industry, and it offers no explanation as to how the endeavor will "protect[] the financial well-being of millions of Americans" as to impact the cybersecurity industry or the country as a whole.
In revoking approval ofthe petition, SCOPS recognized the importance ofa cybersecurity professional in the field of IT auditing, noting that the Petitioner will likely advance the goals and initiatives of his current and prospective employers. However, SCOPS focused on the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor and concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy the national importance requirement, pointing out that an endeavor does not take on national importance merely by being part of a major industry. Citing Matter ofDhanasar, SCOPS determined that the evidence does not show that the Petitioner's endeavor would extend beyond his employer and its customers, broadly enhance societal welfare, or offer substantial economic effects or innovations of such significance that they would advance the field of endeavor.No broader implications shown
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the adverse decision, arguing that SCOPS issued a boilerplate decision and did not address the specific endeavor. However, SCOPS is not required to address each piece of evidence submitted by the Petitioner. Further, SCOPS appropriately referenced Matter of Dhanasar both as precedential legal authority and as illustrative of where prong one is satisfied. SCOPS applied the correct standard of proof and determined that the Petitioner did not establish that his endeavor is of national importance. See Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. at 537 n.2. Based on our de nova review in this matter, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the previously submitted evidence established his endeavor's national importance. For instance, the Petitioner points to a previously submitted DHS report and previously submitted articles in which DHS and the White House contemplated cybersecurity strategy. However, neither the report nor the articles specifically mention the Petitioner, his work, or any government interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Although the record contains additional articles discussing the cybersecurity field, Al's role in cybersecurity, and the impact of cyber incidents on financial systems, they too lack any mention of the Petitioner or his proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner also highlights other previously submitted evidence, including letters of interest and a "Letter for Collaboration" from thel Ito establish that his contributions are "part of a nationally significant initiative." And although the letters praise the Petitioner's qualifications and professional accomplishments, the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. Similarly, the Petitioner's peerreviewed research and citation record, which he points to on appeal, also would be considered under the second prong to determine whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his endeavor. The issue here, however, is whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong.
And while we acknowledge the Petitioner's submission of expert opinion letters from a professor at I jand a computer scientist specializing in AI, their praise of the Petitioner's research and publications in the field of AI and cybersecurity is also more relevant to a second prong discussion. Moreover, the expert opinion letters do not specifically mention the Petitioner's endeavor and therefore do not support assertions regarding the proposed endeavor's national importance.Proposed endeavor too vague The Petitioner also points out that an endeavor is different from a job title, arguing that his employment status at the time of filing does not preclude him from qualifying for a waiver of a labor certification. While these assertions are correct, for the reasons discussed above the Petitioner has not established that his endeavor satisfies prong one's national importance element, which is critical for demonstrating eligibility for a national interest waiver. And although the Petitioner argues that his endeavor is "interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral, and oriented toward innovation" in the cybersecurity field, he does not establish through supporting documentation how his endeavor sufficiently extends beyond the prospective users of his products and services, to impact the cybersecurity field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Without evidence showing any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the Petitioner has not shown that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. p. 5 Additionally, while the Petitioner claims he will use his expertise in AI and cybersecurity to support US businesses and protect their data and privacy, these objectives are insufficient in themselves to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Given the evidentiary deficiencies discussed in the above analysis, the Petitioner has not established that the prospective impact of his endeavor to create and disseminate an AI-based cybersecurity model has national importance.
In sum, the Petitioner has not provided evidence that his endeavor meets the national importance element of the first prong of the analytical framework in Matter ofDhanasar. Because the Petitioner has not overcome SCOPS's conclusion regarding this issue, he has not established that he merits a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
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.