The Petitioner, a cloud software developer, 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 petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be 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 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 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 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 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature).
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
The Petitioner proposes to "develop advanced machine learning frameworks in order to enable personalized, bandwidth-efficient streaming of immersive media, improve robust knowledge discovery from specialized domains, and improve [ artificial intelligence (AI) assisted] productivity across industries." SCOPS found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 2 The sole issue to be determined is whether 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. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar.
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. The relevant question is not the importance ofthe field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the [petitioner] proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. In Dhanasar, we farther noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[ a ]n 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. At the time offiling, the Petitioner was employed as a cloud software developer as Schlumberger. The Petitioner explains that he seeks to pursue research focused on "advancements in machine learning frameworks that are necessary for the improvement of virtual reality and AI technologies to benefit multiple industries around the world." SCOPS acknowledged that the proposed endeavor possesses substantial merit, but did not find it to be of national importance. Upon review, we disagree and withdraw SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong. As evidence that his proposed research in the field ofcomputer science has substantial merit and national importance, the Petitioner presented documentation including a personal statement describing the proposed endeavor and future plans, peer-reviewed journal articles, accepted conference articles, citation records, and industry reports and articles.
The Petitioner also provided probative letters of support from experts in the field describing the Petitioner's past research and significant contributions to the field, his proposed endeavor, and its potential prospective impact in the field of computer science. Moreover, the Petitioner presented evidence indicating the dissemination of his research to others in the field through scientific journal articles and that his endeavor has the potential to advance a critical and emerging technology field. USCIS recognizes the importance of progress in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, especially in focused critical and emerging technologies important to U.S. competitiveness or national security. See generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual, F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed research, he has established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. To determine whether they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, 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 Id.
In denying the petition, although SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, SCOPS determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy the third Dhanasar prong. On appeal, the Petitioner contends SCOPS failed to properly evaluate the submitted evidence and apply the applicable laws. Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. We, therefore, withdraw SCOPS' finding that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner explains that he will be engaged in the development of advanced machine learning (ML) algorithms and data integration techniques that allow for the processing and analyzing of largescale datasets. The Petitioner proclaims that he "possesses a record of success in related or similar efforts to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor." In support, the Petitioner references his academic publications and citation records. The record includes documentation of the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, academic transcripts, peer-reviewed journal and accepted conference articles, and Google Scholar citation record. The Petitioner also offered evidence of articles that cited to his published work, citation metrics, independent advisory opinions, and letters of support. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one.
The Petitioner contends, citing to Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994), that SCOPS' failure to consider all relevant evidence submitted is indicative of an abuse of discretion. With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that they meet each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 75-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what they claim is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Id. at 376. To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. The court in Buletini did not reject the concept p. 4 of examining the quality of the evidence presented to determine whether it establishes a petitioner's eligibility, nor does it suggest that USCIS abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim a petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. See, e.g., Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021).
The Petitioner declares that he possesses "the education, skills, and knowledge to advance the proposed endeavor." We acknowledge that the Petitioner holds an advanced degree in a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) field which is tied to his proposed work to develop "advanced machine learning frameworks in order to enable personalized, bandwidth-efficient streaming of immersive media, improve robust knowledge discovery from specialized domains, and improve AI-assisted productivity across industries." We further recognize the Petitioner's assertion that his work falls within a critical and emerging technology area, and we acknowledge the importance of progress in STEM fields and the role of individuals with advanced STEM degrees. We therefore agree with the Petitioner that we consider his master's degree in a STEM field tied to his proposed endeavor to be an especially positive factor for establishing the second Dhanasar prong.
However, a degree in and ofitself: is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual at F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. When evaluated in the context of the full record, the Petitioner has not shown that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor as contemplated by Dhanasar. In addition to education, we look at a variety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor and education is one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. In Dhanasar, the petitioner held three advanced degrees, including a Ph.D., tied to his proposed research which had significant implications for U.S. national security and competitiveness. To determine whether the petitioner was well positioned to continue to advance his proposed endeavor, we also favorably considered the significance of his research which had been corroborated by evidence as having peer and government interest; the significance of his role in his research projects; consistent funding from government agencies ofhis research projects; and his position with a U.S. university where he intended to conduct his proposed research work. Id. at 892-93. Here, while we recognize the Petitioner's advanced degree and the general alignment of his academic background with his proposed research, a master's degree and a record of publications are not, on their own, sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is particularly well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner emphasizes his citation records, noting that his publications have accumulated 34 citations by the time of filing, increasing to 79 by the time he submitted his response to SCOPS' request for evidence. He highlights one paper that, according to him, ranked among the top 20% of the most-cited articles in the computer science field, published in 2020. He also refers to more recent data suggesting that three of his papers ranked among the top 20% most-cited papers in the computer science field, with two reportedly in the top 1%. The Petitioner also submitted data from._l_____. !regarding baseline citation rates anf perentiles by year of publication for different research fields. However, the documentation from cautions that "[ c ]itation frequency is highly skewed, with many infrequently cited papers and relatively few highly cited papers. Consequently, citation rates should not be interpreted as representing the central tendency of the distribution." The I p. 5 fact a publication bears a high journal ranking or impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, show the influence of any particular author or otherwise demonstrate how an individual's research represents a record of success in their field.
While we agree with the Petitioner that the citations, independent advisory opm10ns, and recommendation letters indicate some degree of interest in his research from his colleagues and peers in the field, this evidence alone is insufficient to demonstrate a level of interest or a record of research success that renders him well positioned. The Petitioner's citation record must be weighed alongside other qualitative indicators of impact and influence. Further, citation frequency, which may include self-citations, is quantitative in nature and does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis. The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published journals and articles, in and of themselves, reflect a record of success in similar efforts to meet Dhanasar's second prong. Moreover, while we listed Dr. Dhanasar's "publications and other published materials that cite his work" among the documents he presented, our determination that he was well positioned under the second prong was not based on his citation record.Citation record not persuasive Rather, in our precedent decision, we found "[t]he petitioner's education, expertise, and experience in his field, the significance ofhis role in research projects, as well as the sustained interest of and funding from government entities such as NASA and AFRL, position him well to continue to advance his proposed endeavor of hypersonic technology research." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. The record includes independent advisory opinions and letters of support that discuss the Petitioner's research projects and discuss how researchers have cited the Petitioner's research in their own research investigations. However, while these letters are supportive in tone and positive factors, they do not offer sufficient, detailed, and concrete examples of how the Petitioner's research has been adopted, applied in practical settings, or changed the course of other research efforts. The authors also do not provide sufficient evidence that the Petitioner's research has been widely accepted or used within the computer science field beyond having been cited by others in their published works.
The Petitioner asserts that he will continue his research while being employed as a cloud software developer. He claims that his "current responsibilities are relevant" to his proposed endeavor because they would provide him with "highly relevant technical skills, domain knowledge, and experience with data-drive, AI-enabled systems to scale." He further contends that he will continue his research with "prominent software developers and researchers" in his field while employed. However, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation detailing how he plans to carry out his proposed research activities. For instance, the Petitioner has not provided evidence ofprogress toward achieving the specific goals of his proposed endeavor, research plan, timeline, funding information, or evidence of institutional or organizational support for the continuation of his research endeavor.Plan or projections not corroborated Nor has he shown that there is established interest in his future research projects. It is also unclear how much time the Petitioner plans to devote towards research versus his responsibilities as a cloud software developer. We note that the Petitioner has not provided documentation from his employer to confirm the Petitioner's research nature of his duties. The record also lacks evidence ofthe connection between the Petitioner's day-to-day responsibilities as a cloud software developer and the research endeavor he proposes. The Petitioner, therefore, has not sufficiently explained how he is well positioned to advance his research endeavor.
The Petitioner asserts that he has received fonding from the U.S. National Science Foundation in support of his prior work. However, the evidence indicates that the Petitioner was not the primary award recipient or principal investigator. Furthermore, the record lacks sufficient detail regarding the Petitioner's special role or responsibilities in securing these fonds. While the record shows that the Petitioner participated in projects that received fonding, without clear documentation of his contributions to the fonding process, it cannot be concluded that these awards are indicative of his individual merit or his capacity to independently advance significant research endeavors. By contrast, in Dhanasar, we noted that the petitioner had received "consistent" government fonding of research projects in which he played a "significant" role, specifically that he initiated or was the primary award contact on several fonded grant proposals and was the only listed researcher on many of the grants. Id. at 893, Fn. 11. Here, although the Petitioner's involvement in fonded researches is favorable, the evidence submitted does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to independently secure fonding or lead the advancement of his proposed endeavor.
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research, but he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed research. While we recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way to be accepted for publication, presentation, fonding, or academic credit, not every individual who has performed original research will be found to be well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Rather, we examine the factors set forth in Dhanasar to determine whether, for instance, the individual's progress towards achieving the goals ofthe proposed research, record of success in similar efforts, or generation of interest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890. Based on our de novo review, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. In considering the record in totality, we, therefore, conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
C. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial
The third prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate 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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884. However, as the Petitioner has not established that he meets the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not shown that he is eligible for and otherwise merits a national interest waiver, and we therefore reserve the Petitioner's arguments with respect to this issue. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 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
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.