The Petitioner, a research scientist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as amember of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as anational 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. 2 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, the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong.3 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS abused its discretion by failing to consider the totality of the evidence and making incorrect conclusions of law and statements of the facts in analyzing the evidence. We disagree with the Petitioner's assessment of SCOPS' decision. 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 E-M-, 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 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 a broader impact to his field or implications rising to a level of national importance.No broader implications shown
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.
The Petitioner claims tht1 SCOPS erroneously conflred his proposed endeavor and his ongoing work as aresearch scientist at~--------~ Instead, he maintains that his personal statement clearly explains how his intended research projects would extend beyond his employer, having national importance based on their contributing to the advancements of new artificial intelligence technologies in finance, advertising, and other industries.
The Petitioner states his proposed endeavor is "to develop cutting-edge artificial intelligence technologies in order to provide efficient user interest modeling, user-generated content understanding, and efficient economic production iteration services for companies across the globe, thus enabling responsible and functional artificial intelligence resources." He indicates that he would continue pursuing his endeavor as a research scientist at ~ere he has worked since January 2024. He emphasizes that his work as a research scientis~ is not his proposed endeavor and instead is a means for advancing his endeavor.
As a research scientist at he ex lains that his work includes "improving the recommendation quality of~-------.,,--------~" He points out that his ongoing research atOis related to his previous research work, "particularly with regards to sophisticated algorithms that support applications as diverse as social media, finance, and cybersecurity." His previous research, he claims is relevant to demonstrating that his proposed endeavor would benefit not only his employer, D but the artificial intelligence field and the technological interests of the United States by "providing efficient user interest modeling, user-generated content understanding, and efficient economic production iteration services ...."
In a request for evidence reply, the Petitioner rovides a statement which briefly summarizes three ongoing research projects he is pursuin at to advance his endeavor. He ex lains that he will continue research to enhance a novel~----------------~for iloroved I user interests for media platforms. In addition, he claims that his projects would improve I Iwhich "will further accele~ate innjvation and support the [artificial intelligence] ecosystem on a broad scale due to the fact tha is one of the most widely adopted models by independent developers and leading tech firms." He stresses that his research scientist work at~would be promoted nationally, beyond his employer, through international social media platforms and by presenting his research at industry conferences.
The Petitioner, however, makes broad claims, without corroborating evidence, that his research would impact national government policies and advance the field of artificial intelligence. 4 His statement provides summaries, without specific details or supporting evidence, of his intended projects, each of which generally states his research will include artificial intelligence and machine learning to improve user satisfaction and data eivar for media and entertainment platforms. While the Petitioner working as a research scientist for with a focus on artificial intelligence may demonstrate 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. 4 With his request for evidence reply, the Petitioner submits documentation about research findings for one of his proposed projects, hyperparameter tuning tools for accelerated machine learning systems. We note that the Petitioner did not raise or explain this research project in his initial filing, having raised it for the first time in his request for evidence reply. Moreover, the research documentation is dated in January 2025, which is after the date of filing this petition in September 2024. A petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(I). A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after a petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Although the Petitioner contends that the acceptance of the research paper at a well-known conference shows his research would have broader implications and prospective impact on the artificial intelligence field, the documentation will not be considered since it is dated after the date of filing the petition for the benefit sought.
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 ofa 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 summarized three research projects, but he has not provided the level of specific details or documentation as required under Dhanasar to support his claims that his proposed research projects have the potential to extend beyond his employer and impact the field of artificial intelligence or other fields and industries. The Petitioner mainly relies on his statements, without corroborating evidence, to characterize his research work as valuable for advancing the field of artificial intelligence. He has not provided evidence to support his claims that his proposed research projects would advance his field more broadly or would be different from work typically performed by a research scientist for D The Petitioner has not detailed or established with supporting evidence his plans to introduce novel technologies or advancements that may be disseminated to or adopted by others operating in the field or industry. A petitioner must also support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 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.
He contends that his plans to disseminate his findings through scholarly publications and industry conferences show his endeavor would have broad national impact, beyond his employer. The Petitioner emphasizes that his research work has had a broad impact in his field, pointing to his previous research work having been government funded, published in reputable industry publications, and presented at industry conferences. While the Petitioner's previous research may help to understand his proposed endeavor, such previous work mainly relates to whether he is well-positioned to advance his endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong.
Much ofthe evidence in the record and the Petitioner's arguments focus on the importance ofthe field of artificial intelligence. To support the argument for national importance, the Petitioner submitted various articles and reports discussing the use of artificial intelligence in the financial sector and in advertising, as well as national government initiatives aimed at the development of safe and secure use of artificial intelligence. This evidence, however, does not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed projects and their potential impact on the field or on such national initiatives. p. 5 The Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor aligns with national government initiatives and USCIS policy guidance recognizing the importance of advancing artificial intelligence for national security and progress in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).Past record does not show influence or success He maintains that his endeavor involves research to advance STEM technologies, in particular artificial intelligence technologies which are recognized by the U.S. National Science and Technology Council as being critical and emerging. While USCIS recognizes specific evidentiary considerations relating to STEM degrees and fields, "the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM 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 advancement of artificial intelligence, 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, or provided supporting evidence 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 undertakin of workin as a research scientist at ith afocus on improving the recommendation quality of ______________ and conducting research on advancing artificial intelligence for the social media and advertising 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 artificial intelligence industry, U.S. national technology initiatives, or other industries.
SCOPS further determined that while the Petitioner established that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong, he did not 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 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 (1976) (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).
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.