The Petitioner, a forensic DNA technologist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional, 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. § l 153(b)(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that 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 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) ofthe 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 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). p. 2 I
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
The Director determined the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional because she submitted evidence that she holds a master's degree in forensic science from I We agree. The only issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest.
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated her proposed endeavor is "to develop, improve and use DNA mapping and extraction technologies to aid local, state[,] federal law enforcement and courts in criminal investigations and in the identification of previously unidentified remains." The Petitioner indicated she would pursue her proposed endeavor while employed as a forensic DNA technologist withl ~
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Id. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. We agree. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor would have national or global implications in her field or otherwise extend beyond her employer's clients to impact her field more broadly.No broader implications shown On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director erred and her proposed endeavor will have national importance because it aligns with the aims of the Justice for All Act "to ensure a fairer and more efficient criminal justice system by protecting victims' rights and enhancing the use of DNA technology." The Petitioner also claims her proposed endeavor will address the nationwide problem of the "unavailability, inability and lack of appropriate DNA technology and extraction methods to properly identify DNA samples and remains for criminal court proceedings and law enforcement investigations." The Petitioner does not cite any evidence to support these claims.
The Petitioner also claims her proposed endeavor has national importance because it will broadly enhance societal welfare "through the solidifying of accurate and fair criminal proceedings in addition to the exhortation ofthose wrongfully convicted due to previous unavailability ofDNA extraction and testing methods." The Petitioner cites no evidence to support this claim. The Petitioner states she has been subpoenaed to testify in five criminal trials in thel Iand submitted evidence of her subpoena to testify in a criminal trial in Maryland. The record does not establish how the p. 3 Petitioner's work would extend beyond her employer's clients and her testimony at individual trials to impact her field or society more broadly in a manner commensurate with national importance. See id. at 889 ( explaining "we look for broader implications").
The Petitioner farther asserts her proposed endeavor will have broader implications, or national or global implications "as the advancement of cutting-edge DNA technology and extraction methods have revolutionized the criminal justice system and have profound implications in the field of genetic research, pharmaceuticals[,] [h]ealth care applications and environmental conservation." The Petitioner cites no evidence to support this claim. The Petitioner submitted articles on changing the role DNA plays in the justice system, the evolution of DNA forensics, recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing, using DNA to solve crimes, exploring the impact of DNA testing, more education, training needed to better incorporate genome sequencing for precision medicine in rare diseases, a whole-genome test for blood cancers, international newborn genome sequencing projects, what doctors wish patients knew about precision medicine, biotechnology's role in agricultural innovation, how designer DNA is changing medicine, DNA analysis~ODIS searching, $2.3 million approved for processing of backlogged sexual assault kits inl__J CBP collecting DNA samples from certain populations of individuals in custody, national genomics center for wildlife and fish conservation, screening framework guidance for providers and users of synthetic nucleic acids, genetic testing, synthetic biology advances and applications in the biotechnology industry, genome analysis core, and articles regarding DNA evidence in criminal cases. The Petitioner also submitted a 2022 Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation and a Privacy Impact Assessment for CBP and ICE DNA Collection. These materials attest to the importance of DNA technology, but do not discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. Our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."Proposed endeavor too vague Id.
The Petitioner submitted support letters that attest to her skills and achievements but do not establish the national iJnortance of her proposed endeavor. K-S-2 praises the Petitioner's work as a graduate student and at rand states the Petitioner's "role as a forensic scientist is indispensable to the United States" as "forensic scientists are often called upon to testify as expert witnesses on cases involving forensic evidence and a shortage of such professionals will severely inhibit judicial processes from proceeding." M-F- also commends the Petitioner's work as a graduate student and at I Iand states it is imperative to retain the Petitioner in the United States due to the shortage of forensic science professionals in the United States. K-S- and M-F- do not discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or indicate how her work would extend beyond her employer's clients or the individual cases in which she testifies to impact her field more broadly. P-B- and C-C- commend the Petitioner's skills and work at~!
~I but do not discuss her specific proposed endeavor. K-Q- praises the Petitioner's skills in DNA collection and sampling techniques, DNA extraction techniques, DNA quantitation, STR amplification and DNA electrophoresis techniques. K-Q- does not indicate, however, that any of these skills are unique, innovative, or otherwise have national or even global implications in the Petitioner's field. See id. ( discussing improved manufacturing processes or medical advances as examples of national or even 2 We use initials to protect the privacy of the referenced individual. p. 4 global implications within a particular field). P-V- and M-I- state the lack of qualified geneticists and forensic scientists has resulted in severe backlogs in the criminal justice system and the identification of human remains and the United States needs more qualified scientists like the Petitioner to bridge the gap, but they do not discuss her specific proposed endeavor.
In sum, the relevant evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national or even global implications within her field, or has other broad implications indicating national importance. Consequently, the Petitioner does not meet the first Dhanasar prong.
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor and she does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of her eligibility under the second and third prongs ofthe 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 ofL-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
The Petitioner has not established the national importance ofher proposed endeavor and does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, she has not demonstrated that she is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.