The Petitioner is a software engineer who 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. § 1153(b )(2).
SCOPS denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (petition), concluding that the record established that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying visa classification, but he did not merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (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. 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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that 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 W Aiyer
The Petitioner holds a master's degree in computer science and he described his proposed endeavor as multifaceted, focusing on advancing critical cloud computing infrastructure, working with state-of-the-art technologies including Artificial Intelligence and big data, and contributing to computer science education.
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
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. When we evaluate national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the alien will work. Rather, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the alien proposes to undertake" and we look to evidence illustrating the "potential prospective impact" of his actual proposed work. Id. A petitioner must demonstrate the proposed endeavor will "impact the field ... more broadly" (Id. at 893) and that it has "broader implications" (Id. at 889). Such endeavors may have "national or even global implications within a particular field" (Id. at 889), "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or [have] other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance" (Id. at 890), or has the potential to widely advance and broadly affect U.S. strategic interests (Id. at 892). After finding the proposed endeavor was substantially meritorious and that the Petitioner showed he was well-positioned to advance the endeavor, SCOPS decided he did not establish that his cloud computing efforts and his contributions to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education (STEM) were of national importance. SCOPS also noted he did not show that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification They acknowledged that although those broader fields were important to the United States, the focus was more properly oriented to the specific endeavors the Petitioner would pursue.Proposed endeavor too vague Relating to his teaching endeavor, SCOPS drew a comparison to the alien in the Dhanasar case in which we concluded that STEM teaching has substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational interests, but he had not demonstrated that the activities of one individual STEM teacher would impact the education field more broadly. Id. at 893. SCOPS decided that same analysis applied in this case. Turning to his cloud computing efforts, SCOPS concluded he did not establish the endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and its clients to impact the field or the nation more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.No broader implications shown They farther stated the record was not persuasive "that any increased financial performance or efficiency realized by the petitioner's current employer or prospective employer would result in significant job growth and/or substantial positive economic effects for the nation.Job creation or economic claims unsupported The benefits provided by a single software engineer are too attenuated to have national importance." Also lacking was a satisfactory plan or projections of economic benefits having sufficient broader implications within the field, or any modernizing or refined methodologies he is p. 3 responsible for. SCOPS noted the Petitioner's assertions were not adequately supported with probative evidence as multiple precedential decisions mandate.
Now, the Petitioner contests SCOPS' decision claiming their judgment calls must be based on evidence. He generally refers to SCOPS' ultimate conclusion that his proposed work is not commensurate with national importance nor does it warrant a waiver in the national interest. The appeal momentarily mentions SCOPS' "statements are not based on evidence. In this case, the importance of my work has been clearly demonstrated through the assessments of my managers and technical colleagues."
But the Petitioner does not offer any substance or explanation relating to his claim that the national importance of his work was shown through letters from his managers or colleagues. Instead, he offers the conclusory assertion that "the evidence on record shows that my contributions have been substantial, and extend to a level of national importance." Mere conclusory assertions do not enable us to determine whether a filing party's eligibility claims are any more reliable than hopeful speculation. Matter ofHo, 22 I&N Dec. 206, 213 (BIA 1998). See also Matter of Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. 354, 355-56 (BIA 1986); Matter ofPatel, 16 I&N Dec. 600,601 (BIA 1978); MatterofMartinezRomero, 18 I&N Dec. 75, 79-80 (BIA 1981).
The Petitioner's appeal does not explain which letters-or what particular portions of the unnamed material-support his claims within the 1,468 pages he offered before SCOPS. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Commensurate with that burden is the responsibility for explaining the significance of offered evidence. Repaka v. Beers, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1219 (S.D. Cal. 2014). And filing parties should not submit large quantities of evidence without notifying the appellate body of the specific documentation that corroborates their claims within such material, as doing so places an undue burden on the appellate body to search through the documentation without the aid of the filing party's knowledge. Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, 14 F.4th 1007, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 196 n.4 (9th Cir. 1992)); Nazakat v. INS, 981 F.2d 1146, 1148 (10th Cir. 1992). It is the filing party's responsibility to inform us of what errors the lower entity committed and how their claims and evidence satisfy which eligibility requirements. Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, 14 F.4th at 1012-13; Spear Mktg., Inc. v. BancorpSouth Bank, 791 F.3d 586, 599 (5th Cir. 2015); S.E.C. v. Thomas, 965 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir. 1992); see also Harolds Stores, Inc. v. Dillard Dep 't Stores, Inc., 82 F.3d 1533, 1540 n.3 (10th Cir. 1996) (concluding that where the evidence in the record is voluminous, it is imperative that an appellant provide specific references to record); Uli v. Mukasey, 533 F .3d 950, 957 (8th Cir. 2008) ( citing to Matter ofD-I-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 448, 451 (BIA 2008) and noting when a case includes voluminous background materials, it is necessary to specifically identify the material one relies on to come to their conclusion). The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (citing Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989)).
And the Petitioner repeats this shortcoming of not explaining what material supports his assertions in his specified claims on appeal. As a result, he has not identified specifically any erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact for the appeal, which is a regulatory mandate for this filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Summary dismissal of an appeal is appropriate when the filing party only asserts the underlying trier of fact came to the wrong conclusion or expresses general disagreement with the lower decision and "fails to specify the reasons for the appeal." Matter of Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. at 355-56; Matter ofDavis, 20 I&N Dec. 536, 537-38 (BIA 1992); Matter ofKeyte, 20 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (BIA 1990); Matter o_fLozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637,639 (BIA 1988); Matter o_fLodge, 19 I&N Dec. 500,501 (BIA 1987); Matter o_fHolguin, 13 I&N Dec. 423,425 (BIA 1969). Where a question oflaw is presented, supporting authority should be included, and where the dispute is on the facts, there should be a discussion of the particular details contested. Matter of Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. at 355. This is an irremeable error that the Petitioner cannot overcome within this proceeding. B. We Reserve Any Determination ofDhanasar's Remaining Second and Third Prongs As we explain above, Dhanasar 's second and third prongs require the Petitioner to demonstrate he is eligible for an NIW meeting additional requirements. But because the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor satisfies the Dhanasar framework's first prong, he is not eligible for an NIW and farther discussion of SCOPS' favorable decision on the second prong and adverse outcome for the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose. Consequently, we will not address and we reserve the Petitioner's remaining appellate arguments. Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 332 (2022) (citing INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (finding agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision)); see also Matter o_f C-1-R-H- & H-S-V-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 114, 116 (BIA 2025) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.