The Petitioner, a senior cloud security architect, 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 that is attached to this classification. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by apreponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, he or she must then establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that 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) Uoining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeal in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature).
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. SCOPS determined that while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, he did not establish the endeavor is of national importance, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Upon de nova review, we agree that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong.2 The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&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. In determining national importance, 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 foreign national proposes to undertake." Id.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS misidentified his proposed endeavor by limiting his endeavor to his proposed job title and employment as asenior cloud security architect. The Petitioner indicates that while he intends to work in the United States as a senior cloud security architect for a leading technology company, such as Google, his prospective employment is separate from his proposed endeavor. He claims that his employment simply "confirms his commitment and capacity to advance his proposed endeavor" and that his statements and supporting evidence clearly explain his proposed endeavor is independent of his employment, having benefits that would extend beyond his prospective employer and advance cybersecurity technologies in the financial, telecommunications, and e-commerce sectors.
In his statements, the Petitioner indicates that his proposed endeavor is "to continue [his] research on designing robust security architectures and developing principles for platforms such as artificial intelligence, [b]ig [d]ata, financial services, and e-[c]ommerce solutions to safeguard digital assets and data from external threats, thereby enhancing cybersecurity outcomes in these domains." He explains that his research includes integrating "zero-trust frameworks in cloud infrastructures" and enhancing artificial intelligence for real-time cyber fraud prevention. The Petitioner summarizes six research projects, indicating his intent to advance the cybersecurity field by collaborating with industry leaders and publishing his findings at industry conferences.
The Petitioner, however, has not offered a specific proposed endeavor for his intended research work as required under Dhanasar, and he has not provided the level of focus or documentation to support his claims that his proposed research projects have the potential to impact the field of cybersecurity or other fields and industries. Instead, the Petitioner's statement provides brief summaries ofhis intended 2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. p. 3 projects, each of which generally states it will include artificial intelligence to develop cloud-based architectures in the advancement of cyber threat detection for the financial, telecommunications, and e-commerce industries and that he will collaborate with an industry professionals for the projects. The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance ofthe "specific endeavor." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. When analyzing the national importance of a petitioner's proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's framework, we focus on the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor, instead oflimiting our analysis to a petitioner's employment at the time offiling. An endeavor is more specific than a general occupation and should include details of the types of work a petitioner intends to undertake and describe specific projects and goals. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. As a comparison, the petitioner in Dhanasar demonstrated that he conducted research and development in the field of air and space propulsion, more specifically, hypersonic propulsion systems involving speeds above Mach 5, and he had developed a novel method for accurately calculating hypersonic airflow. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 891-92. In addition, he submitted evidence reflecting that he would continue his research into designing and developing propulsion systems in nano-satellites, rocket-propelled ballistic missiles, and single-stage-to-orbit vehicles and substantial supporting evidence of how his continued research would assist the United States in maintaining its advantage over other nations in hypersonic flight, including documentation reflecting his receipt of funding from a government entity for his research. Id.
Here, the Petitioner provides brief summaries of his intended research projects and makes broad claims, without corroborating evidence, that his research projects would impact national government policies; advance the detection of cyber threats for the field of cybersecurity; and mitigate economic losses in the financial, telecommunications, and e-commerce industries. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has not done so here. Moreover, while pursuing work as a senior cloud security architect for a technology company focused on artificial intelligence-driven cybersecurity and cloud security for the financial and telecommunications industries demonstrates the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, it does not support or demonstrate its prospective potential impact nationally, or even globally, or through broader implications rising to a level of national importance.No broader implications shown
The Petitioner submitted two letters to support the national importance of his work, but they do not identify or address his specific proposed endeavor. Instead, the letters focus on the Petitioner's previous work in computer science and his accomplishments, while making general statements that the Petitioner's contributions have advanced the computer science field and would be of value to the United States.Support letters generic or unsupported A letter from the Petitioner's former colleague explains that the Petitioner led the migration of his previous employer's bank applications and mentions that the Petitioner's expertise enhances bank security, ensuring customer data protection. The letter only generally references the Petitioner's research, stating "[the Petitioner's] research into safeguarding banking environments confers numerous benefits to the [United States], including empowering artificial intelligence-driven security tools and addressing cybersecurity threats." The second letter mainly highlights the Petitioner's previously published research and the citation of his work by other researchers. While the letters indicate the authors value the Petitioner's work in the field of computer science and cybersecurity, they do not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or how his intended p. 4 research would impact his field or otherwise be of national importance. We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. See Matter ofCaron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988).
Next, the Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor aligns with national government initiatives and USCIS policy guidance recognizing the importance of cybersecurity for national security, artificial intelligence, and progress in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). He maintains that his endeavor involves research to advance STEM technologies, in particular cybersecurity and artificial intelligence technologies which are recognized by the U.S. National Science and Technology Council as being critical and emerging. The record includes pages from media articles and U.S. government reports and policies about the importance of cybersecurity and the protection of data to national security and the U.S. economy.
While USCIS recognizes specific evidentiary considerations relating to STEM degrees and fields, "the evidence must demonstrate that aSTEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(2). We acknowledge the overall value of the cybersecurity industry, attracting qualified professionals in related careers, and strengthening our nation's technology, particularly technology recognized as critical and emerging, but their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular. See id. The Petitioner has not sufficiently detailed his proposed research to understand how it would advance STEM technologies with sufficiently broad potential implications for his field rising to the level of national importance. Moreover, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his specific undertaking of working as asenior cloud security architect for aU.S. company and conducting research on designing security architectures with artificial intelligence for financial services, telecommunications, and e-commerce industries stands to have an impact beyond his prospective employer and clients, or that his proposed research work would otherwise have broader implications for the cybersecurity industry, U.S. national technology initiatives, or other industries. Last, citing Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994), the Petitioner claims SCOPS abused its discretion by not considering the totality of the evidence. The court in Buletini did not 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 the petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir.1992); see also Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. U.S. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993).
To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance of the evidence standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376.; see also Matter of EM-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79- 80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, SCOPS acknowledged documents submitted to evaluate the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor. Based on the record, SCOPS' decision is a reasoned interpretation and consideration of the evidence. The proposed p. 5 endeavor, as described, and the evidence in the record do not support the Petitioner's assertions that the potential impact of his endeavor extends beyond his employer to have abroader impact to his field or implications rising to a level of national importance.
SCOPS further determined that the Petitioner did not establish that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong, and 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 under Dhanasar's third prong.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner qualifies for the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. This identified basis for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, and therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments and eligibility under the second and third prongs of Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (l 976) (noting that "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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Ill. CONCLUSION
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not established his eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.