The Petitioner, a machine learning engineer, 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).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements ofjob offer and thus of a labor certification. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof 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 Christa'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
The Petitioner, a senior machine learning engineer for I Iproposes "to continue his work in computer science and engineering research and their practical application through studies in software engineering, machine learning, and deep learning, allowing new provisions of laboratory technology to the science community and IT and E-commerce industries." The Petitioner specifies he intends to pursue research projects, including: "optimizing novel search and unified browsel I "developing al Ifor real-time bidding in the digital advertising context," and "exploring new recommendation model architecture to support better core advertising models for I Iand the broader e-commerce industry with the objective of developing better AI and ML models with practical applications for the U.S. e-commerce and digital advertising industries."
The Director determined that though the Petitioner has demonstrated he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, he has not established the national importance of the endeavor or that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&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. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts I Idevelopment of machine learning models in digital advertising "drives increased sales and growth in the overall e-commerce industry" and "advances for the machine learning, data science, e-commerce, and digital advertising industries." The Petitioner contends his endeavor merits specific evidentiary consideration as it supports government initiatives and seeks to advance STEM technologies and research, including machine learning and data science research in the fields of e-commerce and digital advertising. We recognize the value of such technological innovations and the importance of emerging technologies; however, merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the Petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's Dhanasar at 889.
Here, the Petitioner is a senior machine learning engineer for I IThe Petitioner asserts his endeavors "will be supported by his employer,I Iwhich has provided him with all of the necessary funding, equipment, computational power, and first-party customer datasets to develop and train his models." The Petitioner contends he plans to publish his "ongoing and future research activities in preprints, journal articles, and industry conferences," while "incorporating his models into thel Iservice," used by retailers, businesses, and brands. The Petitioner indicates the use ofl "benefits the interests ofU.S. small businesses and retailers who will gain more sales, customers, and profits from more efficient digital advertising."
The Petitioner's supervisor notes the Petitioner's three current projects, specifying the Petitioner is working on: 1) "multiple search and unified browse I Ithat together influence over 90% ofl lad traffic," and "accounting for over 60% of the company's total ads revenue," 2) "working on the development of a model that can predict conversion rates to optimize return on ad spend (ROAS) for advertisers, making our platform more attractive and leading to increased advertiser budget and revenue, and 3) "engaging in new model architecture exploration," which "can yield significant revenue increases ( estimated at $20 million annually) by enhancing core advertising models across the company." Although the Petitioner's supervisor, like the Petitioner, asserts the Petitioner's work is of national interest "considering the numerous existing and prospective practical applications of [Petitioner's] machine learning models in advertising and e-commerce," he only details the benefit and application of the Petitioner's work to their common employer, I I The Petitioner, as stated above, has claimed his work would be disseminated beyond its use in I I service, through "preprints, journal articles, and industry conferences." However,! lis a private company and there is no assertion froml Iincluding in the Petitioner's supervisor's submission, that it would support the Petitioner's public dissemination of his work product. I I applied for patents, including the Petitioner as one co-inventor, and issued an article related to its deep learning ___________ But it is not apparent thatI Iinternal research findings would be made publicly available rather than maintained by I Ias proprietary information. It is noted the record does not contain information related to preprints, journal articles, or industry conferences for the Petitioner following his employment with I Iin 2020. And record letters of recommendation indicate the Petitioner's work "has significantly advanced the study of machine learning atl land has been implemented by !engineers. Meanwhile, the letters of recommendation generally asserting the Petitioner's 2019 research paper and subsequent patents have been broadly implemented do not detail how extensively and the way in which the patents, specifically, have been applied outside ofl I Similarly, these letters do not specify how the Petitioner's current proposed endeavor will advance the relevant fields outside ofI Iand I Iclients.Support letters generic or unsupported Overall, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated his endeavor will extend beyond his employer's interests and retail clients in a manner that has national or global impact in the relevant field, or broader implications arising from the endeavor at a level commensurate with national importance.Proposed endeavor too vague
I
The Petitioner asserts his "machine learning models and data analytics tools has a significant positive impact on the U.S. economy, specifically "the growth of U.S. small businesses, digital marketing/advertising, the overall $285.224 billion-dollar e-commerce industry, and the $1.1 trilliondollar grocery industry." The Petitioner specifies companies who have partnered withl "see a more than 15% sales increase from ads and over 30% average sales increase for produce advertisers." However, while any economic activity has the potential to positively impact the economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this potential economic activity is a direct result of his endeavor. Overall, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects, beyond his employer and the clients served by his employer, such that it would have broader implications for the United States.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
B. Additional Dhanasar Prongs and Ineligibility
As our finding on this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and reserve whether the Petitioner has met the additional prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 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 I&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, we conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.