The Petitioner, an artificial intelligence (Al) 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. § 1153(b)(2). SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver. 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) 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
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
SCOPS found that the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional. Additionally, SCOPS found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. However, SCOPS did not find that the proposed endeavor has national importance and that waiving the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, would benefit the United States. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has established that his proposed endeavor has national importance. However, we withdraw SCOPS' finding that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor because the record does not establish that he has met this requirement, and we affirm SCOPS' finding that the Petitioner did not establish that waiving the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, would benefit the United States.
The Petitioner is currently seeking a Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering from the~I I Iand is employed there as a part-time research assistant. In this position, he conducts advanced research in artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics education, focusing on developing and testing personalized learning frameworks; analyzes data to enhance system performance and improve student outcomes; and designs and implements algorithms to optimize resource allocation in robotics and healthcare technologies.
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner stated on his petition that he would be "[ e ]mploying advanced AI and machine learning techniques to optimize data analysis methodologies and enhance software engineering practices in order to advance healthcare, smart cities, and education." He stated he ~tocontinue pursuing his proposed endeavor while earning his Ph.D. from thel I L_J and then pursue a position as a professor at the I Ior a similar employer. On his Form ETA-9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, the Petitioner listed the address for thel las his area ofintended employment and noted that he would not be working in any other geographic areas. On his petition, he listed the address for the as his worksite location.
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner further stated he intends "to continue my investigation into advance artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies to improve the critical sectors of healthcare, smart cities, and STEM education. By leveraging innovative AI-driven algorithms and data analytics, my goal is to develop technology solutions that optimize decision-making, streamline resource allocation, and enhance educational outcomes. This endeavor builds upon my expertise in developing data-driven frameworks for personalized learning, intelligent healthcare systems, and Internet of Things that prioritize sustainable and efficient operations."
Regarding healthcare, the Petitioner mentioned that he will implement optimized scheduling algorithms to reduce processing times for large diagnostic data sets, develop advanced deep learning models to analyze medical imaging and time-series data, and integrate multimodal data for comprehensive personalized diagnostic approaches. Regarding smart cities, he discussed his aim to develop smart resource allocation models for sustainable urban development by expanding AI models to diverse urban environments, integrating renewable energy sources, and developing real-time energy management systems. Finally, regarding education he stated that he will advance Al's role in education by developing p. 3 a modular, adaptive STEM curriculum, build AI-enhanced adaptive learning interfaces, employ natural language processing for intelligent tutoring systems, and conduct user studies to validate Al's impact. Our decision is based on the record which includes, but is not limited to, the Petitioner's statement, academic credentials, curriculum vitae, published research papers, peer reviewed conference articles, evidence ofpast fonding sources, letters discussing his past research projects, industry articles, a report issued by the National Science and Technology Council, and a 2023 Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence.
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
We agree with the determination of SCOPS that the Petitioner has shown his proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and we withdraw the determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. As evidence that his proposed research has substantial merit and national importance, the Petitioner presents information about artificial intelligence in relation to teaching, learning, and healthcare. He also provides letters of support discussing how his research contributes to advancements in the field of artificial intelligence.
The Petitioner submits evidence that his prior research, which his proposed endeavor would expand upon, has received financial support from the National Science Foundation and therefore advances the national interest. Specifically, the record includes four papers authored in part by the Petitioner which list grant numbers and provide "[t]his material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation." The first paper discusses the development of a system to enable robotics instruction through a web-based interface that is compatible with less expensive hardware; the second covers a global online platform for ideas sharing and collaboration; the third involves AI-driven analysis and prediction of energy consumption inl Imunicipal buildings; and the fourth discusses a schedule of duties in the cloud space using a modified salp swarm algorithm.
Additionally, we note the report issued by the National Science and Technology Council listing critical and emerging technology areas and the 2023 Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, which provides that the United States should lead in AI for the sake of our security, economy, and society. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor has applications in the critical and emerging technology area of AI (machine learning). As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor, 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. 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 Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
Although SCOPS concluded, without discussion, that the Petitioner established he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, upon de novo review we disagree and withdraw this finding. The Petitioner previously asserted that the combination of his education, experience, expertise, documented record of success, influence in his field, and his future plans make him well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner referred to his foreign Master of Science Degree in Computer Engineering, which was determined to be the foreign equivalent of a U.S. advanced degree. When looking at the Petitioner's education we note that he only has a master's degree. He is still pursuing his Ph.D. and the record does not establish when he is scheduled to complete it. The Petitioner's present level of education does not currently support the claim that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. In Dhanasar, the record established that the petitioner held multiple graduate degrees including "two master of science degrees, in mechanical engineering and applied physics, as well as a Ph.D. in engineering." Id. at 891.
The Petitioner refers to his work as a universit instructor at and his work as a software engineer at.________________________. The record does not include supporting documentation of his duties as an instructor and a software engineer, and how they make him well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. He also referenced his work as a software engineer and AI instructor at I I from July 2019 to December 2022, where he mentioned he conducted AI training sessions, developed training materials, utilized advanced tools and software for AI and data analysis, facilitated workshops and seminars about AI technologies, and conducted assessments to enhance participants' understanding and application of AI concepts. These duties, while in the field of AI, are not related to the duties of the proposed endeavor.
In regard to skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts, we note the papers which list the Petitioner as one of the authors and which received National Science Foundation grants. On the issue of funding, we note that in Dhanasar, the record established that the petitioner "initiated" or was "the primary award contact on several funded grant proposals" and that he was "the only listed researcher on many of the grants." 26 I&N Dec. at 893, n.11. However, the record does not include evidence establishing that the Petitioner was the primary awardee or recipient of the grant funding, or of the amount of funding received. The Petitioner has not provided evidence that he has received any funding for his future proposed endeavor. The Petitioner pointed out ten peer-reviewed conference articles (7 first-authored), a first-authored conference article, and a technical report resulting from his research. While he claims he has a superior record of citations, the Google Scholar data he presented reflects a total of only 28 citations of his work. The Petitioner referenced his role as a conference session chair for an international conference on software engineering, management, and applications. He stated he was responsible for introducing speakers, managing the schedule, ensuring the smooth running of sessions, and making closing announcements. It is not clear how these duties relate to being well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner noted that at least 3 of his papers are in the top ten percent ofthe most cited articles in the field of computer science in 2023 and 2024, with 9, 6, and 2 citations respectively. The record does not contain sufficient probative and corroborating evidence establishing this claim.
In regard to a model or plan for future activities, the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information on where he would engage in his proposed endeavor.Inconsistencies in the record As mentioned above, he stated he plans to p. 5 I continue pursuing his proposed endeavor while;....e:.:a=-m=1=· n::i;;g2....:h:::i:::s..:P..:h::..D=-:.. . ..::fr:...:o:..:m:.:..:th=.e::..!:::::==------------' and then pursue a position as a professor at the ~-----------~ora similar employer.
However, on his Form ETA-9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, the Petitioner only listed the address for the~-----------~as his area ofintended employment and noted that he would not be working in any other geographic areas, and on his petition he only listed the address for the as his worksite location. In the event thel ~----------'is his intended place ofemployment, he has not provided an offer ofemployment from them to engage in his proposed endeavor. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not provided evidence of interest ofpotential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals in his proposed endeavor.No interest from users, customers or investors
We acknowledge the prior research of the Petitioner in the field of AI and the papers he has authored in part. We recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication, presentation, fonding, or academic credit, but not every individual who has performed original research will be found to be well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. When viewing the totality of the record, we determine that it does not demonstrate that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, and he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. Accordingly, we withdraw SCOPS' determination.
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. at 890-91. In performing this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the individual's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Id. In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish 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. Id. at 891.
Although we have already determined that the Petitioner has not established that he is well-positioned to advance his endeavor, and therefore does not merit a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework, we will nonetheless address the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar 's third prong. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets this requirement. He states that he has proven himself to be an influential figure in an extremely important area of research; he has submitted documentation to show he has been highly successful in his career conducting research in AI for applications related to education, healthcare, and critical and emerging technologies prioritized by the United States; and experts in the field have spoken highly of his contributions and expertise. He farther mentions that he has a superior record of citations, and his contributions are of such value that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirement of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's current and past research, he has not established that obtaining a labor certification would be impractical.Labor certification not shown to be impractical As indicated in his immigration forms, the Petitioner plans to pursue his proposed endeavor as a professor at thel IIn the event this is the case, the Petitioner has not established that it would be impractical to obtain a labor certification with the I Ias his future employer. Furthermore, the record does not establish that the United States would still benefit from the Petitioner's contributions even assuming other qualified U.S. workers are available. Specifically, the Petitioner has not established how his research is distinguished from that of qualified U.S. workers engaged in similar AI research such that the labor certification requirement should be waived. We again note that while he claims he has a superior record of citations, the Google Scholar data he presented reflects a total of only 28 citations of his work.
Finally, the Petitioner has not established that the national interest in his contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process.No urgency shown He previously asserted that there is an urgent national need for his continuing contributions considering U.S. healthcare expenditures in 2022 of four and one-half trillion dollars. The Petitioner has not provided evidence establishing the financial impact of his future research in the healthcare industry, the field of STEM education, or the advancement of smart cities, such that it would address an urgent need to reduce national costs in these areas. The Petitioner does not otherwise assert, nor does the record reflect, the reasons for the urgency of his proposed endeavor to warrant forgoing the labor certification process.
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown that it would be beneficial to waive the labor certification process.
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. We therefore conclude that he has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.