The Petitioner, an artificial intelligence researcher, 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).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement 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 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.
Ifa 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 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.
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
Analysis
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. Based on the evidence in the record that the Petitioner possesses a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in mechanical engineering from thel lwe agree. The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. Based on our de novo review of the record, we agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar. Specifically, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first Dhanasar prong. 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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. In determining national importance, "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and have stated that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." See id. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities, even in a field with substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational interests, did not rise to the level ofhaving national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893.
On the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Petitioner listed his occupation as "artificial intelligence researcher" and his proposed employment as "professor." He described his proposed endeavor as conducting research to advance the integration of artificial intelligence in industrial applications. The Petitioner states that his research will focus on computer vision and data mining and that to pursue this endeavor he will seek a position as a professor in the United States, with a particular interest in pursuing a position with the I I The Petitioner states that his planned research topics include "developing applications for deep learning-based computer vision systems in manufacturing process verification and working environment safety control, as well as vision-based autonomous vehicle control."
Additionally, in response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an updated personal statement in which he also discussed a research and development project that he has been pursuing to develop "an all-in-one AI-based machine vision system" called the I !system. The Petitioner asserts that the project has been fonded by thel ILtd. and that his I Isystem will advance the use of artificial intelligence in education and manufacturing. The Petitioner claims that th~ Isystem allows users to develop computer vision applications quickly and with little or no need for computer programming skills.
The Petitioner claims that the endeavor is nationally important because improvements to reliable computer vision and data mining systems have potential applications in the manufacturing, healthcare, p. 3 and education sectors. In support of these claims the Petitioner submitted articles, reports, and personal statements. The Petitioner also asserted that his letters of recommendation and his citation record and publication history demonstrate the national importance of his endeavor. Finally, the Petitioner states that his endeavor is nationally important because it relates to artificial intelligence, a critical and emerging technology area.
The Petitioner generally contends on appeal that he has already submitted sufficient evidence of his eligibility for the national interest waiver, including the national importance ofhis proposed endeavor. In support of these arguments, the Petitioner re-states the description of his endeavor and excerpts his previous statements in the record. He contends that SCOPS mischaracterized the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and failed to consider all of the ways in which an endeavor may be nationally important. We agree that SCOPS, in its analysis of the first prong, improperly limited its consideration of the ways in which a petitioner may establish the national importance ofa proposed endeavor. Specifically, SCOPS stated that the Petitioner did not establish the endeavor's national importance "as there is no significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has (sic) other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area."Job creation or economic claims unsupported But these factors, while they are ways in which national importance may be established, are not required. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor's potential impact may rise to the level of national importance, for example, based upon its implications within a particular field. Id. We therefore withdraw SCOPS' analysis inasmuch as it concludes that the sole reason that the proposed endeavor lacks national importance is because the evidence did not demonstrate the endeavor's substantial economic benefits or significant potential to employ U.S. workers.
Nevertheless, we conduct de novo review and have considered the record in foll. Upon de novo review, we agree that the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.
We recognize the importance of artificial intelligence research and agree with SCOPS that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. But the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the [petitioner] proposes to undertake." Id. Here, the Petitioner asserts that he has specific research goals related to computer vision and data mining that he intends pursue as a professor, but also that he is developing an AI-based 'I t' system. To the extent his research goals, business project, and plan to pursue a position as a professor constitute an endeavor, the record does not contain sufficient evidence describing this endeavor and its future potential impact. First, we conclude that the articles and reports submitted do not sufficiently demonstrate the endeavor's potential prospective impact on the field.Past record does not show influence or success The record includes articles about the growth of the "smart manufacturing" market in the United States, the growing use of artificial intelligence in the healthcare sector, subsidies for artificial intelligence chip manufacturing in the United States, and an effort by the World Economic Forum to use health data to improve patient outcomes. Although these articles discuss artificial intelligence in the healthcare, manufacturing, and education sectors, they do not sufficiently support the claim that the endeavor has the potential to impact these sectors at a level commensurate with national importance. For example, the Petitioner asserts that his work "bridges gaps between public trust in artificial intelligence implementation in healthcare" and the use of these p. 4 systems in patient care. In support of this claim, the Petitioner relies on an article stating that approximately 60% of Americans say they are uncomfortable with their healthcare provider relying on artificial intelligence for diagnostics and treatment recommendations. But while the article may demonstrate the public's distrust of the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare, it does not demonstrate that the endeavor has the potential to decrease or otherwise impact this distrust towards its use.
The Petitioner also claimed that his support letters, publication history, and citation record demonstrate the national importance ofthe endeavor. Similarly, the Petitioner asserts that his endeavor has national importance because his research area furthers critical and emerging technologies, and that he is part of the "world's AI talent" that the 2023 Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence seeks to support.
As a general matter, we note that while a petitioner's achievements in the field, such as their record of publications and citations, may be relevant in some circumstances in establishing the potential prospective impact of their endeavor, the focus of the first prong is on the proposed endeavor itself and not the petitioner. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Evidence of a petitioner's knowledge, skills, and record of success in related or similar efforts generally relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the [individual]" and whether they are well-positioned to advance it.Proposed endeavor too vague Id. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that a petitioner's history of impactful research work could be relevant to the potential prospective impact of a proposed endeavor. Here, however, even the most recent of the publications to which the Petitioner refers are approximately five years old. Inasmuch as the Petitioner requests that we consider his record of success in similar or related efforts in our analysis of the first prong, we note that the record does not show that the Petitioner has been engaged in the publication or presentation ofresearch since 2019. Instead, the Petitioner's curriculum vitae states that he has been engaged in the development of hisl Isystem for the last five years. The Petitioner both asserts that he intends to publish and present research as a professor, and discusses the I Isystem that he has developed. But the record is not c)ear ar to the relation between the two, and whether or how he would continue to develop~----~ Nevertheless, we conclude that the record does not sufficiently support the Petitioner's assertion that he is among the "world's AI talent," as discussed in the 2023 Executive Order, and that his endeavor should therefore be found nationally important. Finally, we conclude that the support letters do not establish the proposed endeavor's national importance. Instead, the letters primarily discuss the Petitioner's past research work, for example a project on optimizing the performance and efficiency ofexcavators used in construction by developing a machine-learning based computer vision system. The letters do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its potential prospective impact.
We conclude that the evidence in its totality, including his past research work, his support letters, and the articles and reports submitted, do not demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor, as required by the first Dhanasar prong, he has not demonstrated that he is eligible for a national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the remaining eligibility requirements for the requested national interest waiver. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies p. 5 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 that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.