The Petitioner, a senior engineer, large foundation models, 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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, is 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 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 withdraw the decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis.
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) ofthe 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. 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.
Id.
Analysis
The Director determined that the Petitioner is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework.
The Petitioner earned a bachelor ofscience degree in computer science and statistics from .------'---.------' University in 2020, followed by a master of science degree in data science fro ,--l--~-....1University in 2022. He has served as a researcher at both universities, as well as with He is currently employed as a senior engineer, large foundation models, with.__ ____________,Inc. The Petitioner states that he has a record of success as a researcher in machine learning, including publication of scholarly articles, citations to his research, and original and significant methods and results. His proposed endeavor is to continue his research work withl I "creating extensive frameworks and foundational models to improve the ability of [ artificial intelligence] AI systems to code, plan, and reason in order to enable autonomous AI systems to operate independently, assisting people effectively and enhancing societal productivity."
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of his education and experience, a resume, a personal statement describing his proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a national interest waiver, and recommendation and support letters. He also submitted evidence of his publications and citations, and industry reports and articles discussing the importance o±: and increasing demand for, artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States.
Following initial review, SCOPS determined that the Petitioner had not established his eligibility under any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. SCOPS issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish his eligibility for the national interest waiver. In the RFE, SCOPS stated, "You did not explain what your specific undertaking is in the United States. Since it appears as though you do not have a project/undertaking in the United States, the evidence suggests that you have no proposed endeavor." Despite stating that the Petitioner did not have a proposed endeavor, in the RFE SCOPS analyzed each prong of the Dhanasar framework based upon the proposed endeavor described in the Petitioner's personal statement.
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided an updated personal statement providing more detail about his proposed endeavor, as well as additional evidence to establish his eligibility for the national interest waiver. In his personal statement, the Petitioner listed specific projects he will work on in his proposed endeavor, including improving search algorithms, and developing AI agents with codereasoning ability to assist human programmers. He also described several of his current projects 2 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds a U.S. master's degree awarded in 2022. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). p. 3 through his current employer, including training and deploying an AI Chatbot for factual questionanswering, training systems for better mathematical reasoning, and inventing new methods for finetuning algorithms.
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, SCOPS determined that the Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has national importance, that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. SCOPS did conclude that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit.
On appeal, the Petitioner notes several factual and legal errors in SCOPS' s analysis of the evidence. He contends that SCOPS did not review and consider the evidence submitted in support of his claim of eligibility for a national interest waiver.
After reviewing the record in its totality, we conclude that SCOPS's unfavorable determination did not specifically address all the Petitioner's claims or evidence, and, in some instances, did not appear to adhere to USCIS regulations and policy guidance in explaining the reasons for denial.
An officer's written decision must folly explain the specific reasons for denying a visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(l)(i). Absent such an explanation, a petitioner is not provided a fair opportunity to contest the decision. See, e.g. Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must folly explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Here, because SCOP's decision does not provide a complete analysis and sufficient basis explaining the reasons for denial, we will withdraw the decision and remand for farther review and entry of a new decision, consistent with our discussion below. 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 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. SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, but not national importance.
The Petitioner described his proposed endeavor in two personal statements, as well as in the attorney's briefs accompanying the initial filing and the RFE response. The record includes expert opinion letters discussing the importance of the Petitioner's research to increasing human productivity and the reliability of AI systems in education, science, technology and manufacturing. He submitted several articles addressing the use of AI and the importance of research in AI capabilities for national security and economic prosperity. We agree that this evidence is sufficient to show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of continuing research in the field of AI to "promote safe and reliable interactions with users" is of substantial merit.
Turning to the national importance of his proposed endeavor, SCOPS concluded that the endeavor did not have national importance but did not provide an analysis of the specific evidence in the record or p. 4 explain its deficiencies in the decision. For example, in acknowledging the Petitioner's personal statements and accompanying briefs, SCOPS stated, "You make multiple statements regarding the national importance of your proposed endeavor that are not supported by evidence." However, the record does include evidence supporting the Petitioner's statements, including expert opinion letters, articles discussing the importance of AI as a government initiative, and articles describing the importance of the Petitioner's specific projects in improving large language models (LLM) and AI code-reasoning ability.
SCOPS's analysis of the record is general in nature, without referencing specific documentary evidence or explaining why it is insufficient. Further, some statements in the decision are contradictory to the conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance.Inconsistencies in the record For example, SCOPS stated in the decision on page 6, "it is true that his work will have an impact in the field," and "the work atl IInc. in general has national importance," on page 7.
Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner that the decision is insufficient for review as it pertains to the proposed endeavor's national importance. On remand, SCOPS should analyze the evidence to determine whether the record sufficiently demonstrates that the proposed endeavor has national importance. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. SCOPS should focus on what the Petitioner will be doing rather than the specific occupation and should keep in mind that it is the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor that must be shown, not the importance of the overall field of AI. An endeavor having significant potential on the broader implications for a field or region generally may rise to the level of having national importance for the purpose of establishing eligibility for a national interest waiver. 3 SCOPS should review the record, including evidence submitted on appeal, to determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has significant potential on the broader impact in the field.
If SCOPS concludes that the Petitioner's documentation does not meet the national importance requirements of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the decision should discuss the insufficiencies in the evidence and adequately explain the reasons for ineligibility.
B. Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
In the second prong, the focus shifts to the petitioner and their positioning to advance their proposed endeavor, and we look at several factors in making this determination. We consider factors including, but not limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals.Past record does not show influence or success See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
The analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility under the second prong is similarly insufficient. SCOPS determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that "parties are interested in hiring or investing in his [proposed endeavor]" and "has not submitted nay evidence of a job offer or explained how they 3 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(D)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. p. 5 will continue their work in the United States." However, these statements are not supported by the record. The Petitioner provided evidence that he is already employed with I I I IInc., a party investing in his proposed endeavor for AI research and with whom he has a continuing job offer.
SCOPS also determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his work "constitutes a record of success or progress in the Machine Leaming field." However, the Petitioner provided evidence in attempt to demonstrate his record of success in the field, including his Google Scholar citation record, which he states demonstrates the influence his work has on the field. He also submitted evidence of publication of a peer-reviewed research paper in a top conference. Although SCOPS acknowledged this evidence, it did not provide any analysis. Rather, on page 9 of the decision, SCOPS stated, "Additionally, the Petitioner does have a Google Scholar record. Therefore, it is not possible to draw reliable conclusions regarding the Petitioner's success."
SCOPS further stated that the articles in the record "speak in broad terms about technology and trends in advanced computing technologies in general." However, several of these articles address the Petitioner's specific research projects in LLM and AI code-reasoning ability. SCOPS does not address these articles or analyze this evidence.
We also note that SCOPS incorporated their analysis of whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor into their analysis of Dhanasar's third prong, conflating the evidentiary requirements for these distinct prongs. On page 9 ofthe denial decision, under the heading "Whether the Beneficiary is Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor," SCOPS stated: "The evidence does not support that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waiver the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification."Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification It goes on to note that the Petitioner did establish that his "skill set is unable to be articulated so that a labor certification would be impractical." SCOPS did not cite to any law or policy or further explain how the impracticality of a labor certification is relevant to whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.Labor certification not shown to be impractical
Again, an officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition to allow a petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786. On remand, SCOPS should analyze the evidence to determine whether the record sufficiently demonstrates that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and should articulate the basis for that conclusion. If SCOPS concludes that the Petitioner's documentation does not meet Dhanasar's second prong, the decision should discuss the insufficiencies in the evidence and adequately explain the reasons for ineligibility.
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States
As to the third prong ofDhanasar, SCOPS stated the law and the relevant considerations in performing the third prong's balancing analysis and concluded that the Petitioner "has not submitted documentary evidence that demonstrates 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." On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that p. 6 the decision "failed to meet the most basic guidelines for preparing decisions, resulting in a final action that is all but impossible to interpret."
SCOPS did not sufficiently acknowledge and address the evidence ofrecord as to the third prong, and did not discuss the evidence weighed in balancing the relevant considerations. On remand, SCOPS should address all of the Petitioner's arguments and evidence, including those submitted on appeal, and explain the relative decisional weight given to each balancing factor. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786.
Conclusion
Accordingly, we are remanding the petition for SCOPS to properly apply all three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework to determine if 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 may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand.
ORDER: The decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis.