The Petitioner is a computer scientist 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 (NIW) 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).
Through its Service Center Operations (SCOPS), USCIS denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (petition), concluding the record established that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying visa classification, but she 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 by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; 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 ofDhanasar, 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, 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. USCIS' decision to grant or deny an NIW is discretionary in nature. See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the First, Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals).
Analysis
A. National Interest Waiver
The Petitioner received her foreign equivalent of a Ph.D. in Computer Science in 2022. She has since worked as a data scientist for an artificial intelligence human resources technology company and an applied research scientist at a cancer research and treatment hospital. Within the initial filing, the Petitioner described her proposed endeavor stating:
My proposed endeavor is to apply argument mining techniques to patient records and clinical trial reports to facilitate conclusion extraction in order to analyze data, improve decision-making, identify recurring patterns, detect safety concerns, and support evidence-based medical practices. To progress this endeavor, I will utilize my extensive experience with data mining and analysis, deep learning, machine learning, and natural language processing algorithms. My work will continue to be circulated in the field through my peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. l. Substantial Merit and National Importance (Collectively Dhanasar 's First Prong) The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 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. 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 their 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 such as resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" (Id. at 889), have the potential to widely advance and broadly affect U.S. strategic interests (Id. at 892), or "particularly in an economically depressed area" the "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or [have] other substantial positive economic effects" (Id. at 890).
USCIS policy also provides that "if the evidence of record demonstrates that the person's proposed endeavor has the significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, or to contribute to the advancement of a valuable technology or field of study, it may rise to the level of national importance." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (citing Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90, 892). p. 3 SCOPS made an adverse determination under the national importance portion because the evidence did not show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work would have a broader impact beyond her employer or immediate projects.No broader implications shown They further found the submission focused more on the importance ofthe Petitioner's field and qualifications than it did on the prospective national impact ofthe endeavor itself. SCOPS also determined the Petitioner made eligibility assertions that she did not corroborate with adequate evidence, which did not meet her burden of proof.
First, the appeal brief reflects a misunderstanding of what is required to establish the national importance ofa proposed endeavor. In the appeal, the Petitioner states this office "found that evidence demonstrating the importance ofthe petitioner's area ofresearch as it relates to U.S. strategic interests and additional evidence demonstrating the potential significance of U.S. advances in the petitioner's research area was sufficient for satisfying the national importance requirement of the first prong." The Petitioner supports this claim by quoting from the Dhanasar decision. She notes how we discussed letters describing the importance ofhypersonic propulsion research, as well as media articles and other evidence relating to governmental interest in developing hypersonic technologies. But the Petitioner's reading of the Dhanasar decision here is misplaced as those actions simply provided factual context for Dr. Dhanasar's proposed endeavor and did not themselves establish the legal standard for national importance.
Contrary to the Petitioner's characterization, the Dhanasar decision focused on the specific work Dr. Dhanasar proposed to undertake and the evidence demonstrating that his proposed research had the potential to produce broader impacts in his field. In particular, the Dhanasar decision credited expert opinion letters and supporting documentation explaining how his research could improve aerospace capabilities with practical implications for U.S. defense, national security, and scientific competitiveness. Dhanasar 's finding ofnational importance rested not on the recognized significance of the aerospace field itself: but on evidence demonstrating that Dr. Dhanasar's endeavor had the potential to advance that field in ways that would have broader implications for the national interest.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's So, the decision did not disregard evidence describing the importance ofDr. Dhanasar's field; instead, we evaluated that evidence together with documentation establishing the prospective impact of his specific endeavor. One difference between the claims and supporting evidence in the Dhanasar case and the Petitioner's is that she has not also shown the "potential prospective impact" of her proposed work (Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889) and how it will "impact the field ... more broadly" (Id. at 893). Dr. Dhanasar's record revealed a clear path showing how his work would potentially impact the field more broadly, but the record before us here is not so illuminating.
Now that we've disposed of that misunderstanding, we address the core of prong one's national importance requirement as it relates to this case: how her proposed endeavor will impact the field more broadly.
Simply advancing goals that are nationally important or addressing the country's critical health challenges, as the Petitioner claims here, doesn't meet the requirements to be nationally important. And on the issue ofwhat the Dhanasar decision requires to demonstrate national importance, a review reveals that Dr. Dhanasar presented his proposed endeavor as having a significant impact in his field, as did many of the expert letters supporting his petition. And when we considered Dr. Dhanasar's p. 4 appeal, we performed two evaluations to determine what did, and what did not, qualify as a proposed endeavor under prong one's national importance requirements. We decided his future research efforts qualified, while his future teaching endeavor did not.
Ultimately, the question petitioners should answer for prong one's national importance requirement is not whether an endeavor could touch its broader field in some limited way, but whether it could impact the field in ways that carry national importance. Routine or incremental contributions that merely add knowledge or other improvements to the field without broader implications are generally insufficient to satisfy Dhanasar 's prong one requirements. See id. at 889-90, 893 ( concluding through its descriptive language that an endeavor's impact in a field should be wide or extensive and should not be limited, e.g., "broader implications," "significant potential," "substantial positive economic effects," and "more broadly").
The Dhanasar decision provides examples illustrating that-when it comes to national importance-a qualifying endeavor cannot rest on minimal effects. The decision does not provide that we only consider whether an endeavor has the potential to have any prospective impact in the field. Interpreting the requirements in that manner would effectively nullify the stature requirement under prong one that the endeavor must be of national importance. Instead, it should include qualitative aspects and have "national or even global implications within a particular field" or have "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects." Id. at 889-90. We implemented that concept in the Dhanasar decision itself when we drew the distinction between his two claimed endeavors: one to continue research into propulsion systems for nano-satellites, rocket-propelled ballistic missiles, and single-stage-to-orbit vehicles, and another endeavor to continue teaching aerospace engineering at the university level. The potential level of impact of Dr. Dhanasar's future research was a key factor in demonstrating that his work met the criteria of being nationally important under the first prong. What makes this apparent was his future efforts in teaching did not have a sufficient level of impact in the broader field and therefore, did not meet the national importance requirements under prong one. Dr. Dhanasar did not show that he "would be engaged in activities that would impact the field of STEM education more broadly."
A proposed endeavor should demonstrate qualitative contributions-such as adequately advancing knowledge, improving practices, or creating conditions with national or even global implications-rather than relying on vague or incremental effects. To satisfy this portion of prong one, a petitioner must demonstrate that the proposed endeavor will have broader field-level or national effects. For example, the endeavor will shape how the field operates, how technologies are deployed, how policies are formed, or how outcomes are produced. Without that, the claimed impact is nominal and falls short of meeting the NIW requirements. USCIS policy guidance further reinforces this qualitative approach as being proper, stating that national importance may be established "if the evidence ofrecord demonstrates that the person's proposed endeavor has the significant potential to" have a noteworthy positive impact on society or a particular technology or area of study. See generalZv 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, F.5(D)(3), ( citing Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90, 892). (Emphasis added).
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 specific endeavor that the alien p. 5 proposes to undertake" and we look to evidence illustrating the "potential prospective impact" of their actual proposed work. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. SCOPS conveyed this in their request for evidence when it informed her that her evidence did "not demonstrate how [her] projects have national or global implications in the healthcare field," and in the petition's denial decision, but it appears the Petitioner refuses to accept the agency's ruling on the issue. The Petitioner has the burden to submit claims and evidence that preponderantly meet the requirements as specified in the statute, regulation, precedent decisions, and agency policies. But she has not satisfied that burden here. See Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998) (finding that the filing party's burden of proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well as the ultimate burden of persuasion).
The crux of the purpose of the national importance element in the NIW category is not that an alien is doing important work. While that may be a consideration under Dhanasar 's first prong, it falls under prong one's substantial merit requirements. Instead, national importance means that the individual's proposed endeavor is likely to have a noteworthy, distinct, and qualitative impact in the field in which the alien performs the endeavor. Factors to consider with other types of endeavors is whether they have "national or even global implications within a particular field such as resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" (Id. at 889), have the potential to widely advance and broadly affect U.S. strategic interests (Id. at 892), or "particularly in an economically depressed area" the "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or [have] other substantial positive economic effects" (Id. at 890). So, doing important work is one requirement, but those seeking an NIW must show their efforts are more than that, and that their work will have adequate repercussions in the field.
We observe the Petitioner's claims that her efforts are nationally important could be adopted and used by anyone performing similar work, despite the fact that she has not demonstrated that her work would have, at best, more than a nominal impact in the field. It therefore appears to be the Petitioner's position that every immigrant doing the same type of research that she proposes should qualify for Dhanasar 's first prong simply by performing the work. That is wholly inadequate to meet the nationally important requirements under the NIW classification, and the Petitioner seemingly has conflated prong one's less rigorous substantial merit requirement with its more exacting national importance mandate.
Next, the Petitioner quotes from a support letter froml lan assistant professor at a medical college. The quoted material described some of the Petitioner's work, but the primary focus was on multilingual aspects to incorporate languages other than English into artificial intelligence large language models. That was not part ofthe Petitioner's proposed endeavor and the appeal brief doesn't explain how its relevant to her claimed eligibility under prong one's national importance requirements. The Petitioner's appeal brief also quotes from the letter from another assistant professor, but the quoted material is also unrelated to her endeavor's focus on healthcare and it is unclear what relevance the content has to the proposed endeavor.
In closing, the Petitioner claims that SCOPS "appears to impose positive economic effects as a novel evidentiary requirement for" her case. The appeal brief then quotes from the denial decision in which SCOPS stated:
In Dhanasar, USCIS determined that Dr. Dhanasar 's teaching activities did not rise to the level ofhaving national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally important because it will not impact the field more broadly, USCIS cannot conclude that the potential prospective impact of the petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would have any implications beyond her own prospective students and employer to impact the field, industry, society, or the economy more broadly.
We do not agree that SCOPS imposed any economic effect within this passage. Although they mentioned her employer in passing, we cannot draw the same conclusion from the quoted material that the Petitioner infers.
Because the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by Dhanasar 's first prong, she has not demonstrated eligibility for an NIW of the job offer requirement.
2. We Reserve Dhanasar 's Remaining Second and Third Prongs
As we explain above, Dhanasar 's second and third prongs require the Petitioner to demonstrate she is eligible for an NIW meeting additional requirements. But because the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor satisfies the Dhanasar framework's first prong, she is not eligible for an NIW and further discussion of the second and third prongs 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 ofL-R-M-C- & V-A-M-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 757, 757 n.l (BIA 2026) ( concluding when another issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not need to address other matters in the appeal).
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.
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 1-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.