The Petitioner, a researcher in computer security, 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. § l 153(b)(2).
USCIS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner is eligible for 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 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.
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years ofprogressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id.
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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. p. 2 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.
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
Analysis
The Petitioner is a researcher in computer security whose proposed endeavor is to "continue his research on developing state-of-the-art tools and techniques for securing real-world software across a wide spectrum ofapplications in order to significantly advance the security and reliability ofconsumer devices and services critical to billions of end users and essential for safeguarding sensitive information and financial stability." The Director determined that the Petitioner established his eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 2 However, the Director further concluded that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in this finding. We conclude the record does not establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is ofnational importance and therefore he is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
A. The Record Establishes the Proposed Endeavor Has Substantial Merit
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. As stated above, the Petitioner intends to "continue his research to develop state-of-the-art tools and techniques for securing real-world software across a wide spectrum of applications." He asserts that his work is critical because he provides new software security tools and techniques for protecting individuals and businesses. The Petitioner contends that his work falls within the National Science and Technology Council list of Critical and Emerging Technologies through his work in the field of computer security and his "proposed endeavor has applications in the advancement ofhardware, firmware, and software, distributed ledger technologies, and digital assets." The record includes industry reports and articles about the increasing reliance on digital infrastructure, the major issues facing cybersecurity, and its impact on the security and financial stability of the United States. We conclude the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit.
B. The Record Does Not Establish the Proposed Endeavor Has National Importance In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish the broader implications of his proposed endeavor and therefore he did not establish its national importance.Proposed endeavor too vague On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director imposed a heightened standard, failed to distinguish between the proposed endeavor and his proposed employment, and failed to consider all the relevant evidence in the record. Upon review, we too conclude that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the standard for national importance set forth in the Dhanasar framework.
As an initial matter, the Petitioner contends that the Director imposed a higher standard than Matter of Dhanasar 's "potential prospective impact" when they concluded the Petitioner has not "demonstrated that the proposed endeavor is directed by or integrated into a national program, has been adopted or endorsed by a U.S. government agency as a matter of policy, or produces outcomes that extend beyond routine corporate security improvements."Past record does not show influence or success The Petitioner asserts that Matter of Dhanasar does not require the evidence described above and we agree. However, the Director ultimately determined that the evidence in the record focuses primarily on the importance of the field in which the Petitioner works and his experience in the field instead of the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor, and therefore the record does not establish national importance.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's Here, we concur with their final determination for the reasons discussed below.
As stated above, the Petitioner proposes to continue his research to develop "state-of-the-art tools and techniques for securing real-world software across a wide spectrum of applications" with the goal to "advance the security and reliability of consumer devices and services critical to billions of end users and essential for safeguarding sensitive information and financial stability." Dhanasar states that 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. The Petitioner asserts his proposed endeavor will have a broad impact on his field as it aligns with national directives, will address major vulnerabilities in software security, and will have a substantial positive economic impact. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Here, the evidence in the record does not support these assertions.
The Petitioner contends that the Director failed to distinguish between his proposed endeavor and his proposed employment. We acknowledge that the record states the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, is as quoted above, "to continue his research on developing state-of-the-art tools and techniques for securing real-world software across a wide spectrum of applications in order to significantly advance the security and reliability of consumer devices and services critical to bullions of end users and essential for safeguarding sensitive information and financial stability." Further, the record establishes that the Petitioner is employed atl las a security researcher. The Petitioner provides evidence of his employment as the way he will implement his proposed endeavor and therefore it is a critical element of the proposed endeavor and part of our analysis. He states that his proposed endeavor will have broad implications outside ofhis employment because his work "will be promoted at the national level through the company's nationwide business channels, outreach, partnerships, and research foundation, for example, publications in peer reviewed conferences,joumals, and patents." However, p. 4 the employment letter in the record states that the Petitioner will "[ d]isseminate research findings by authoring biogs or presenting at security conferences to attract external researchers to conduct offensive research on the I I and I Iservices." While research can have a broader impact on the field, the Petitioner does not provide enough detail about the dissemination of his research such as how or where the research will be published in order for us to determine a broader impact. Although the Petitioner describes broad dissemination through his employer's outreach and partnership, his employer states his work will be disseminated in biogs or through conference presentations to attract external researchers. Therefore, the record is unclear in how broad the dissemination of his work will be and if it could impact the field or if it would be limited to his employer.Benefits limited to an employer or its clients In Dhanasar, we determined that the Petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Similarly, without sufficient evidence of a broader impact, the Petitioner's activities as a security researcher for his employer do not establish national or global implications within the field.
The Petitioner contends that the Director failed to consider all relevant evidence, particularly the letters of recommendation and testimonial letters in the record. Upon review of the letters, we conclude that they highlight the Petitioner's experience in the field and the importance of the field in general, but do not provide sufficient evidence of the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.Support letters generic or unsupported For example, in the letter written by Z-Q-, the author praises the Petitioner's prior work. He discusses one of the Petitioner's research projects that gained over 150 citations. The author highlights that the Petitioner has published 11 articles and has been cited over 900 times and describes the Petitioner's work as "an immense value to the research community." Further, in a letter written by A-G-, the author states that he is "confident in attesting the significance of [ the Petitioner's] research, as [he has] cited his findings in [his] work. ..." Although the author contends that the Petitioner's research is important, the focus is on the impact of his prior work; not the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's experience in the field; evidence of the Petitioner's past success and experience is relevant to Dhanasar 's prong two analysis, on whether the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the endeavor. 3 It does not establish the national importance ofthe proposed endeavor as its focus is on the Petitioner's qualifications and not the endeavor's prospective impact. Id. at 889. Therefore, evidence of the Petitioner's past experience, even if successful, does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Id. at 890.
Further, the letters that discuss his proposed endeavor focus on the importance of the industry and research in general terms but lack specificity about the Petitioner and the prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor. For example, in the letter written by D-B-, the author states, "[w]ith the ever-increasing reliance on digital infrastructure worldwide, ensuring the security ofoperating systems and devices is essential for protecting critical infrastructure against cyber-attacks." While this letter attests to the increased use of digital software and the importance of its security, he does not 3 The record also contains a testimonial letter confirming the Petitioner's role in research that was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Office of Naval Research, and the National Science Foundation. The Petitioner contends that this is evidence of the national importance of his work as this type of funding is reserved solely for research directed at advancing the national interest. However, this too is related to the Petitioner prior work and, as stated above, evidence of the Petitioner's past experience, even if successful, does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor and is more relevant to Dhanasar's prong two analysis. Id. at 889. p. 5 specifically discuss how the Petitioner's work will impact digital software in a way that would rise to the level of "national or even global implications within a particular field." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The record also contains various articles about cyber security, internet and smartphone usage in the United States, the average cost of data breaches, and government initiatives to strengthen the nation's cybersecurity. While we acknowledge the importance of the field and government initiatives related to his field; the relevant question is not the importance of the field in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the [Petitioner] proposes to undertake." Id. Here, the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry through the articles and letters in the record to farther establish the national importance ofhis proposed endeavor. Without sufficient documentary evidence of the specific proposed endeavor's potential broader impact in the industry, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Matter ofDhanasar states that 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 his proposed endeavor is "beneficial to the American economy because of the overwhelming economic burden imposed by hostile cyber actors." In support ofthis assertion, the Petitioner provided articles and reports about the global cost of data breaches. The Petitioner asserts that his "research directly reduc[ es] economic losses, strengthen[ s] national resilience, and ensur[ es] the stability ofU.S. commerce." As stated above, a petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Here, evidence of the cost of data breaches in the United States is not probative evidence that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have a substantial economic impact.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Therefore, the record does not support the Petitioner's assertion of his proposed endeavor's substantial positive economic effects and therefore does not farther establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
In reviewing the totality of the evidence, we conclude that the Petitioner did not satisfy his burden to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, his proposed endeavor's national importance because he has not submitted sufficient evidence to support his claims of national importance. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered the record in its entirety. As the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong ofthe Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the Petitioner is ineligible for a national interest waiver, we need not reach, and therefore reserve, remaining Dhanasar prongs. 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 has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. p. 6 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 of a 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.