The Petitioner, a financial technologies researcher currently residing abroad, seeks employment-based second preference immigrant visa classification (EB-2) as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and 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).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner qualified for the EB-2 visa classification as an advanced degree professional, he had not established eligibility for the national interest waiver.
The matter is now before us on appeal.
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 first establish that 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.
Once the 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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 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 a matter ofdiscretion, 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.
As stated, the Petitioner must establish that he satisfies the above criteria by a preponderance of the evidence. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires the evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner's claims are "probably true" or "more likely than not" based on the specific facts and circumstances of his case. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 ( citing Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989), and INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987) ( discussing "more likely than not" as a greater than 50% chance of an occurrence taking place)).
Analysis
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and the record supports this determination. 2 The only issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner has met his burden of proof to establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that he has not met this burden.
The Petitioner represented on the instant Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, that his proposed endeavor is to "[r]esearch, develop, and apply innovative business model approaches utilizing emerging technologies in order to produce business model tools for wealth creation." As his worksite location, the Petitioner listed the address of the __________ In a separate statement the Petitioner described his proposed endeavor as follows:
My proposed endeavor is to develop and apply innovative model approaches utilizing emerging technologies in order to produce business model tools for wealth creation.
To progress this endeavor, I will utilize my extensive experience with digital business models, digital transformation, and digital economy, as well as with the drivers of emerging technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain, big data, and artificial intelligence. My work will continue to be circulated in the field through my peer-reviewed publications in journals and conference proceedings.
I plan to pursue a faculty position as a professor of information systems in the United States. I am most interested in pursuing this position with the I I My planned research topics include designing and developing data-driven 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature).
business models, IoT-information driven business models and block chain driven business models -particularly in the banking and financial sectors.
Please note that my research at the University of Texas at Dallas will be promoted at the national level through the university's research outcomes and newly devised digital business logics . . . . Based on my experience in the field, I am confident I can attain this, or a very similar position related to my proposed endeavor in the United States.
In support, the Petitioner initially submitted evidence including3 his curriculum vitae; opinions from his peers about the importance ofhis work and accomplishments in the field of financial technologies; multiple publications and articles he either authored or co-authored; Google Scholar citations record, 2021 McKinsey Global Survey, and a February 2022 report by a subcommittee ofthe National Science and Technology Council titled "Critical and Emerging Technologies List Update" (CET), identifying "financial technologies" as one of critical and emerging technology areas of particular importance to the national security of the United States. The Petitioner also presented a letter from a manager of I 4 who indicated that "[h]aving made significant strides in the scientific community, [the Petitioner] ventured to expand his endeavor in the [United States] by developing the idea [ of] a startup," and that would "support him with free office space, internet, mentorship, and other necessary software and hardware to help him tum his innovative business model into a viable product."
The Director subsequently issued a request for evidence (RFE), advising the Petitioner that the articles related to his area of expertise and letters of recommendation discussing his documented research in finance technologies were not sufficient to show that his proposed endeavor of pursuing a position of a professor ofinformation systems and researcher satisfied the national importance criteria outlined in Dhanasar. The Director therefore asked the Petitioner to provide additional information, including a detailed description ofhis proposed endeavor, and documentation to establish the endeavor's potential prospective impact, such as its national or global implications in the field, potential to employ U.S. workers and enhance societal welfare, or its potential impact with respect to a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or which was the subject of national initiatives. In response, the Petitioner repeated that his "proposed endeavor involves developing and applying innovative business model approaches utilizing emerging technologies in order to produce business model tools for wealth creation." He added that his plan was "to continue to design and develop new breeds ofbusiness models based on emerging technologies such as blockchains, artificial intelligence, Internet ofThings (IoT), and big data," and that "[t]hese comprehensive research plans provide further detail on the investigations [he] intends to pursue in the coming years and confirm that his proposed endeavor is a direct continuation of his previous achievements as a researcher." The Petitioner also submitted evidence of a job offer he had received from I 5 for the position of Director of New Business Development, stating, in part, that the Petitioner's "experience and knowledge in 3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 4 Described in the letter as "a world-renowned accelerator and venture capital firm and an experienced investor with over 35 years of experience."
developing innovative business model approaches using emerging technologies make [him] a perfect fit for this position," and that he "can help I Ifind the best business model and innovative solutions necessary to achieve [their] growth targets."
In his RFE response, the Petitioner contended that the offer ofemployment froml Ievinces that his knowledge and skills are of great interest to private companies that wish to capitalize on his contributions to the financial technologies field, while his acceptance to the accelerator program at "illustrates the value of his ongoing research" and "allows him to continue pursuing his future research plans and thereby facilitates his ongoing work in the field of financial technologies." He indicated that the area ofhis research is vital to the nation because ofits implications for allowing companies in a multitude of sectors, including the energy sector, to update their business models to reflect the growing interest in implementing digital tools and clean energy technologies, which will enable them to better meet consumer demands and the changing energy goals ofthe United States. He also pointed out that "financial technologies" was listed as a "critical and emerging technology" in the CET report and has been recognized as having the potential to fulfill the 2021 Interim National Security Strategic Guidance objectives of protecting the security of the American people, expanding economic prosperity and opportunity, and realizing and defending democratic values. The Petitioner indicated that for these reasons "the benefits of his work extend well beyond the confines of his employer to the United States and the world more broadly," and "it is readily apparent that [his] proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance."Proposed endeavor too vague The Director determined that although the Petitioner was not required to have a job offer from a specific employer, he had not shown that his proposed endeavor, which appeared to be working "as an IT specialist for various companies," was nationally important. In making this determination, the Director acknowledged evidence pointing to the importance ofinformation systems to U.S. companies and the U.S. economy in general but concluded that the Petitioner did not show his work would sufficiently extend beyond his prospective employers and clients to impact the field or industry more broadly, or that it met any of the other factors considered in evaluating a proposed endeavor's national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar 's analytical framework.
On appeal, the Petitioner references his RFE response and states that rather than acknowledging that the evidence supported his eligibility for the national interest waiver with a likelihood greater than 50%, the Director erred by employing a standard of proof that well exceeds the proper preponderance of the evidence standard. He avers that the Director's conflation of his proposed employment and his proposed endeavor, along with the dismissal of the "detailed and comprehensive explanation" of his endeavor indicates that the evidence was not sufficiently reviewed. The Petitioner states, citing to Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1223 (E.D. Mi. 1994) that failure to consider all relevant evidence submitted has been found to be an abuse of discretion. He further states that the Director also failed to comply with the standards set by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126 (D.D.D.C. 2013)6 "by dismissing the evidence submitted and refusing to offer feedback on its merits or lack thereof." Specifically, he contends that the Director did not consider "Statistica and Our World in Data" that provided contextual statistics on internet users and 6Tn that case, the district court upheld a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met the extraordinary ability criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), stating that where the agency did give some weight to the evidence - just not the weight the petitioner would prefer - the court could not conclude that the agency's decision was arbitrary. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35. p. 5 global internet usage worth," he initially submitted to emphasize the critical need for his expertise in financial technologies.
As an initial matter, while the Petitioner asserts that he provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver, he does not explain or identify any specific instance in which the Director applied a standard of proof other than the preponderance of evidence in denying his petition. Furthermore, like the Board of Immigration Appeals we are not bound by the published decisions of U.S. district courts even in matters arising within the same district. See Matter ofK-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719 (BIA 1993). Thus, while we may consider the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision when it is properly before us, we are not required to follow it as a matter oflaw. We also note that there is nothing in the Buletini decision to suggest that USCIS abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. Rather, so long as USCIS gives a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the petitioner presented. Ren v. USCIS, 60 F.4th 89, 97 (4th Cir. 2023); see also Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1142-43 (5th Cir. 1984) (stating that "[the Board oflmmigration Appeals] has no duty to write an exegesis on every contention").
In addition, the record does not sufficiently support the Petitioner's claim that the Director did not consider all relevant evidence. To the contrary - the RFE indicates that the Director reviewed the initially provided documentation and found it insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor met the national importance requirement. The Director also advised the Petitioner that pursuant to Dhanasar, in determining national importance the relevant question is not the importance of the field or industry, or profession in which the individual will work, but the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's We cannot therefore conclude that the Director did not consider all relevant evidence or applied an incorrect standard of proof in evaluating the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver and ultimately denying his petition.
Furthermore, while we agree that the Director misconstrued the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as performing the work of an IT specialist for various companies, we conclude that the evidence considered individually and in the aggregate is insufficient to show that the Petitioner is "more likely than not" eligible for a national interest waiver.
The Petitioner reiterates on appeal that he intends to continue his investigation to discover new breeds of business models based on emerging technologies. He indicates that his results will be in the form of new technology driven-business models, which will be directly beneficial to the United States. The Petitioner states that one of the consequences of adopting innovative applications of emerging technologies is creating new jobs in the United States, thus creating the potential to transform industries, create new products and services, and drive economic growth. He asserts that the evidence initially submitted demonstrated that his proposed endeavor is nationally important because of the increasing demand for mobile services like online banking, and that the investigative and diagnostic models that accurately determine digital readiness and the growing adoption of online financial services he developed showed how his work in the field is significant for meeting customer needs as digital financial tools become increasingly common across the United States. The Petitioner again references the letters from I as evidence that there is a demand for his expertise in the United States. He indicates that the results of his "research endeavors will be promoted at the p. 6 national level through his outcomes and new devised business logics, and start-up companies," and that his "innovative research supports the creation of job opportunities for engineering, cutting-edge technologists, and business school graduates. In support, he points to the previously submitted World Economic Forum report estimating that "there will be 133 million new jobs created by 2022 due to the adoption of emerging technologies. He also refers to the previously provided 2021 McKinsey Global Survey, indicating that in the post-pandemic era companies investing in improving their technology capabilities and resources have better outcomes than those that are not.
We acknowledge the Petitioner's achievements and expertise in his field, as well as his extensive prior research, and the importance, expansion, and growing positive impact of technology within the commercial sphere. However, in evaluating whether an endeavor is of national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake," and evidence of its "potential prospective impact." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Accordingly, "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and consider whether "[a a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field" or whether it "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90.
Although the Petitioner contends that he has provided a "detailed and comprehensive explanation" of his proposed endeavor, the description of the work he intends to do in the United States is ambiguous and does not include discussion of his specific goals. For example, the Petitioner does not expound on how his intent "to continue his investigation to discover new breeds of business models based on emerging technologies" will "form new technology driven-business models," or what his work will actually entail. Nor does he explain how his research may be implemented to potentially create new jobs, products, and service, thus driving economic growth or advancing important government objectives. Furthermore, while the Petitioner initially indicated that he would seek a professorship, preferably at the __________ to conduct and promote his research at the national level, he does not claim or provide evidence that the or any other institution of higher learning in the United States has offered him a faculty position or that he has otherwise secured research grants to continue his work in the financial technologies field. Addingto the ambiguity is the Petitioner's statement in response to the RFE that his acceptance into the accelerator program, in which they offered him office space, internet, software, and hardware, ... enables him to complete his innovative business model research," and "his employment with I I supp supports his advancement ofthe proposed endeavor." Lastly, the specific area ofthe Petitioner's research is not clear, as at times he indicates that he will focus on "financial technologies" because of the increasing demand for mobile services like online banking, and at times suggests that his research will generally involve "emerging technologies," which will allow companies in a multitude of sectors, including the energy sector, to update their business models and better meet consumer demands and the changing energy goals of the United States.
We cannot evaluate the prospective impact of a proposed endeavor without, for example, information about how it will be funded, where it will be undertaken, and the individual's definitive endeavorrelated work goals. The Petitioner's reiteration on appeal that he generally intends to continue his investigation to discover new breeds of business models based on emerging technologies, and that his results will be in the form of new technology driven-business models beneficial to the United States, does not provide any further details about the practical aspects and objectives of his work and does p. 7 not therefore resolve the ambiguity concerning his proposed endeavor. Absent specific, consistent information about the Petitioner's undertaking corroborated by evidence, the record remains insufficient to establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance.
Lastly, the Petitioner stresses that financial technologies is one of critical and emerging technology areas of particular importance to the national security of the United States, and that his research therefore aligns with the important government's goals. We recognize the importance of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields and "the essential role of persons with advanced STEM degrees in fostering this progress, especially in focused critical and emerging technologies or other STEM areas important to U.S. competitiveness or national security. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. We also acknowledge that "[m]any proposed endeavors that aim to advance STEM technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, . . . have sufficiently broad potential implications to demonstrate national importance." See generally id. Nonetheless, with respect to the first prong, as in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. See generally id.
Here, as discussed, the Petitioner has not clearly articulated his specific proposed endeavor and has not provided sufficient documentation to show that its prospective potential impact in a STEM field would reach the level of national importance. The Petitioner's general unsupported assertions that his research "to discover new breeds of business models based on emerging technologies" has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, as well as substantial positive social and economic impacts are not sufficient to satisfy his burden of proof in these proceedings.Job creation or economic claims unsupported See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. We conclude, therefore, that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
Because the Petitioner is ineligible for the national interest waiver on this basis alone, we need not address at this time whether his endeavor meets the "substantial merit" requirement of the Dhanasar' s first prong, and also decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter of L-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 his burden of proof to show that he satisfies the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, he 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.