The Petitioner, a software engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 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 although the Petitioner qualified for classification as an advanced degree professional, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor is ofnational importance, that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe 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 qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. Based on the evidence submitted, including his diploma, transcripts, and academic credential evaluation, he possesses the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree in computer engineering. 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 concluded that while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has substantial merit,2 he did not establish the endeavor is of national importance, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Upon de novo review, we agree with this determination.
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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We further 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.
The Petitioner earned a Master of Science de ree rcom uter engineering with a focus on networks and distributed systems from in 1Ireland. He then worked as a software engineer and senior consultant at.__ ______
~from February 2013 to January 2020, "play[ing]
We will first address the Petitioner's contention that SCOPS mischaracterized the nature of his endeavor as "AI model development or recommendation system" when his endeavor focuses on "designing, optimizing, and scaling standardized APis and cloud-based integration frameworks that enable independent U.S. businesses to securely connect their own systems to large-scale businessmessaging networks." Upon review, we disagree with the Petitioner's assessment of SCOPS' decision. Overall, SCOPS correctly acknowledged and discussed the proposed endeavor in detail, often referring to the Petitioner's own statements. Although SCOPS stated that "the petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor - beyond general statements about artfficial intelligence and recommendation systems [ emphasis added] - rises to the national importance" to summarize the endeavor, this single sentence is not representative of SCOPS' understanding and description of the Petitioner's endeavor. As this statement does not substantively alter the decision or its outcome, we do not find any material error here.
Next, we will discuss the Petitioner's claim that SCOPS erroneously concluded that his endeavor primarily benefits his employer. At the time offiling, the Petitioner was employed as a business support engineer ate=] as shown by the employment verification letter in the record. The Petitioner indicated in his personal statement that "my technical contributions will remain internal to c=J' or that "my work will be carried out exclusively through my current role at ie=J]," revealing how his endeavor is very much defined and constricted to his role at~ Although the Petitioner claimed that the impact of his work will "scale outward through integrations, partnerships, and documentation that guide external adoption" and "the tools, frameworks, and protocols I plan to develop will be designed to support widespread adoption across diverse sectors," the record does not sufficiently explain or corroborate his claims.
GivenI Ireputation and broad customer base, we recognize that the Petitioner's role is important to ~sproducts or solutions are widely used by other companies. We also acknowledge attestations fromc=J and its customers regarding the Petitioner's contribution as a software engineer and various innovative tools that he has implemented in the course ofhis employment. However, the record~ demonstrate that the economic implications and technological advancements resulting from L__J operations would be directly attributable to hi1 particrar role as a software engineer. The issue here is not the broader implications and utilization of products by government or industries, but rather the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.No broader implications shown "Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, F.5(D)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual.
The record, including the Petitioner's own statements, expert opinion and recommendation letters, industry reports and articles, 3 does not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner would pursue the endeavor independently outside the scope of his current role, whether the work performed forDis meaningfully distinct from the proposed endeavor, or whether his endeavor would be propriety to IInstead, the letters from managers and employees ofc=]describe the Petitioner's outstanding technical proficiency[ lea1 ership skills, and his innovative solutions to secure digital messaging platforms for various customers. Other letters froml Icustomers generally claim that the Petitioner's projects and contributions will impact the industry or the United States as a whole.Support letters generic or unsupported For 3 While we do not discuss every piece ofevidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. I p. 4 example, X-L- from I I state that "his technological insight, careful attention to the complexities of large-scale systems, and steadfast dedication to efficient, secure operations validate his role as a pivotal force shaping the future of digital commerce." L-W- ofl !declares that "his dedication to research, innovation, and cross-industry collaboration will drive continued progress in next-generation messaging and automation" and "his initiatives spur widespread partnerships among enterprise software providers, e-commerce players, financial services, and go~ntal agencies." But aside from describing the Petitioner's work projects as an employee atl__J the authors do not attest to the endeavor's future impact with persuasive and concrete details. 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 891-92. In addition, we gave significant weight to "probative expert letters from individuals holding senior positions in academia, government, and industry that describe the importance of hypersonic propulsion research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests" and "detailed expert letters describing U.S. Government interest" in Dr. Dhanasar's specific research. Id. at 892. Here, the Petitioner has not provided similar evidence, such as the type of expert opinion evidence or letters from government entities or industry as a whole detailing how his specific endeavor impacts a matter that is a subject of national initiatives, despite claiming that that the Petitioner's talent, contributions, and area of focus, are in demand by his employer and its customers.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's Moreover, the Petitioner's claim that SCOPS disregarded the Petitioner's evidence of "widespread adoption or licensing of a technology" conflicts with his subsequent claim that SCOPS erred by requiring evidence of formal collaborations with third-party entities. Although the Petitioner submitted a list of over 102 independent U.S. businesses that "have implemented [his] APis, demonstrating concrete, measurable domestic adoption," the Petitioner does not provide any "agreements or contracts" or other corroborating documents showing that the adoption or licensing of a technology is directly attributable to the Petitioner. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. We acknmyedgel that the Petitioner's "API-first designs are meant for broad external use and adoption, not for alone" and his work in secure digital messaging platforms is adopted by third parties through his employment at D However, the issue is "whether the petitioner can demonstrate that the person's own individual endeavor stands to have broader implications, such as for a field, a region, or the public at large." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(3). Here, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain or provide adequate evidence to demonstrate that it is his own specific endeavor that has had, or is likely to have impact that will rise to the level of national importance. Lastly, the Petitioner contends that SCOPS overlooks the economic impact of the Petitioner's work. The Petitioner asserts that his "APis and integration frameworks have directly enabled the creation and expansion of ... independent companies that build, manage and operate business-messaging solutions for end clients using the Petitioner's APis" and these entities, in tum, "employ engineers, data specialists, and support staff across the United States, resulting in predictable job creation and sustained economic activity." Any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact the economy; however, the Petitioner has not offered a sufficiently direct connection between his proposed endeavor's activities and any demonstratable substantial economic activities.
We determined in Dhanasar that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Similarly, we find that the Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor in this case will sufficiently extend beyond his employer and its clients to affect the regional or national economy more broadly or have a widespread impact to his field rising to a level of national importance, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.; see also Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79- 80 (Comm'r 1989). Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
NOTICE: This constitutes the final decision in this matter. The filing of a motion will not postpone the effect of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iv). Aliens who are not lawfully present, or who are otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may be subject to the commencement of removal proceedings under section 240 ofthe Act through the issuance of a Form 1-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.