The Petitioner, a machine learning research scientist, 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2).
SCOPS concluded that the record does not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement, 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 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) 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 the proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and we agree. However, for the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. Id. The Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan "to develop state-of-the-art simulation and modeling methodologies to develop novel computing algorithms and systems in order to improve artificial intelligence (AI) applications." The Petitioner specified that he plans to "focus on compiler technologies to optimize computational graph capture and enable seamless deployment across diverse hardware platforms." He elaborated that his research would concentrate on advancing computational graph modelling and execution performance, integrating backend support for heterogeneous hardware, and enhancing portability of AI models.
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a statement clarifying his current and future research and highlighting the ijportaye of his research, his independent citation record, his peer review service after working with related USCIS policy manual information and an immigration decision.
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner established the proposed endeavor had substantial merit, but not national importance, noting that the Petitioner hadn't demonstrated the national impact the endeavor would have.
On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director's denial did not include the required "discretionary analysis" and was therefore arbitrary. In doing so, he cites 1 USCIS Policy Manual E.9(B)(3) https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual, explaining that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver to a Petitioner who meets the eligibility requirements outlined in our precedent decision in Dhanasar. According to the cited chapter of the USCIS Policy Manual, if USCIS denies a request as a matter of discretion, the denial will explain the reasons the request was not granted. The Petitioner claims that the SCOPS decision failed to coherently explain the reasons the petition was denied and that it is an abuse ofdiscretion. Despite the Petitioner's contentions, the decision analyzed the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested benefit and provided explanations for the denial, including an examination of the endeavor's impact in his particular field, an analysis of the broader national impact in the field of machine learning technology, and a discussion of what the submitted evidence did and did not establish.
The Petitioner also identifies typographical errors in the decision in describing the Petitioner's gender and endeavor at one point in the decision, and asserts that these errors indicate the analysis of the endeavor was inaccurate and lacked the proper review. Although the decision notes that the endeavor does not involve working fo~ ISCOPS does incorrectly indicate at another point that Dis the p. 3 pet1t10ning organization. The Petitioner contends that these errors indicate the adjudicating officer was not engaged with the evidence and that the decision lacks the proper standard of review. He maintains that the endeavor meets the first Dhanasar prong because it has national implications within a particular field and that the benefits from his research are so significant that it would be beneficial to waive the labor certification.
Overall, we recognize the Petitioner's contentions as to the claimed errors in the Director's decision, however, these claimed errors were, at most, harmless. See generally Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing cases regarding harmless or scrivener's errors). Following review, we conclude that the decision is sufficient and specific enough to provide the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i); see also 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). Moreover, we conduct a de novo review and have considered the evidence in the record in foll, including evidence that was submitted in response to the RFE. While we may not discuss each piece ofevidence in the record in our decision, we have reviewed and considered each one.
We tum now to the Petitioner's specific claims of eligibility under the requisite Dhanasar prongs, beginning with whether the Petitioner has established the national importance of the proposed endeavor. In determining national importance under the first Dhanasar prong, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the [individual] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or those with "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90.
The Petitioner asserts that his endeavor is nationally important because it will advance trusted AI ecosystems and will "foster globally interconnected research infrastructures, maintain U.S. leadership in ethical AI innovation, and amplify its economic and societal impact." Yet, the Petitioner does not provide support for these assertions and more specifically how his particular endeavor would have a national impact. Contending that the articles and studies cited in the appeal support the importance of AI and machine learning technology, the Petitioner maintains his endeavor is nationally important. However, this evidence relates to the AI field in general and the industry overall but does not explain how the Petitioner's endeavor would have a national impact.Proposed endeavor too vague
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted his independent citation record, with 54 citations, to demonstrate how the impact of his contributions extends beyond his current employerJ Iand the AI field and explains that a majority of these citations were from independent researchers. Upon de novo review of this evidence, we agree with the Petitioner that the evidence appears to demonstrate that the published work that he has participated in and contributed to has been cited frequently by independent researchers at a high rate. While this is a positive factor, the Petitioner does not explain p. 4 the reasons for the citations. He states that his "papers rank among the0most cited articles across all ofengineering for the respective years of publication," but does not describe how these works relate to his specific endeavor rather than the engineering field in general.
The Petitioner asserts that the fonding for his research from the Office of Naval Research's Multidisciplinary University Research Initiatives program is another indicator of the national importance of his endeavor. The fonding information submitted with the petition is a description of the request for proposal and lacks information regarding the project for which the Petitioner is being fonded, including the amount, timeline and specifics of that program. Further, the Petitioner does not explain how evidence of this fonding demonstrates the national importance of his proposed endeavor related to the research he proposes to undertake.
As noted above, the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work is not the relevant question to determine whether a proposed endeavor may have national importance. See id. In determining whether an endeavor implicating STEM fields may have national importance, as in all cases, the record must establish that the specific proposed endeavor-rather than the occupational classification, field, or industry in general-has national importance, as provided in Dhanasar, such as by broadly impacting the relevant STEM field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l)-(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Neither the Petitioner's personal statement nor the remainder of the record provide probative, objective information regarding how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications within the field of machine learning technology or any other particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances, or substantial positive economic effects. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Further, as SCOPS noted, the Petitioner does not assert-and the record does not support the conclusion-that the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have significant potential to employ U.S. workers.Job creation or economic claims unsupported See id. Finally, the Petitioner asserts that he was not required to show his endeavor's substantial positive economic effects. Although the Petitioner is correct, he has not demonstrated how the Director purportedly required him to make such a showing. A petitioner's proposed endeavor can rise to the level of national importance through establishing one or more of the criteria. This can include and is not limited to economic effects. However, in any given set of facts, it is a petitioner's burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed endeavor is of national importance. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 at 376. A petitioner must also support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Id. As the Petitioner has not done so here, he has not sufficiently established that his proposed endeavor in the United States will have national importance under the first Dhanasar prong.
Conclusion
Because we determine that the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance, which is dispositive, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as required in part by the first Dhanasar prong, and whether the record satisfies the second and third Dhanasar 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 p. 5 ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-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).
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 2
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.