The Petitioner, an artificial intelligence 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2).
The Director ofthe Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not established 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.
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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will sustain 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. If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 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.
Analysis
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
2 The sole issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. At the time of filing, the Petitioner was employed as a research software engineer at I I 3 In this capacity, the Petitioner indicated that he is involved in research aimed at "machine learning (ML)-based techniques and incorporation. Specifically, he will prototype ML automatic model validation services; implement monitoring methods to report data drift for face recognition services; research ML projects such as privacy-preserving ML, model compression, and adversarial modeling; and publish original artificial intelligence research in peer-reviewed journals and conferences."
With regard to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner stated that he intended to continue his research related to developing and improving "ML techniques for autonomously updating models and building privacy enhancing techniques to incorporate machine learning across sectors." He further explained that he plans to pursue research involving "state-of-the-art ML models and building privacy enhancing techniques in order to improve the case ofML incorporation in various sectors, such as the automotive industry and healthcare." For the reasons discussed below, we conclude the Petitioner has established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar. A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor We withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong. 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 presented information about artificial intelligence, ML, and autonomous vehicles. 4 He also provided letters of support discussing how his undertaking contributes to advancements in the development of improved ML technologies. Additionally, the Petitioner submitted documentation indicating that the benefit of his proposed research offers broader implications for the field of artificial intelligence, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through scientific journals and conferences. As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed research, he has established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 2 The Petitioner received a Master oflnformation Systems Management degree from _______ in 20 I 9. 3 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from a specific employer. However, we will consider information about his research position to illustrate the capacity in which he intends to work in order to determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar framework.
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
We also withdraw the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish he meets Dhanasar's second prong. The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. The record includes his curriculum vitae, academic records (including his Master of Information Systems Management degree), published and presented work, U.S. patent applications, peer review activity, and documentation ofnumerous articles that cited to his research findings. In addition, the Petitioner offered reference letters describing his expertise in ML and his past record of success in that research field. Several expert references identify specific examples of how the Petitioner's research progress relating to privacy-preserving ML and ML model validation techniques has affected his field. As corroborating documentation regarding the significance of his work, the Petitioner provided evidence showing that his published work has been frequently cited by independent researchers, and that the rate at which his work has been cited is high relative to others in the field. His experience and expertise as an artificial intelligence researcher, published articles, citation evidence, U.S. patent applications, record of success contributing to various research projects, and progress in his field position him well to advance his proposed endeavor. Accordingly, the Petitioner has demonstrated that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States
Furthermore, we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish he meets Dhanasar 's third prong. This 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. Id. at 890. As an artificial intelligence researcher, the Petitioner possesses considerable experience and expertise in privacy-preserving ML and ML model validation techniques. The record also demonstrates the widespread benefits associated with research progress in the development of improved ML technologies. In addition, the Petitioner has documented his past successes in advancing research in the field of artificial intelligence. Based on the Petitioner's track record of successful research and the significance of his proposed work to advance U.S. technological interests, we conclude that he offers contributions of such value that, on balance, they would benefit the United States even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available. The Petitioner therefore satisfies the third prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Conclusion
The Petitioner has met the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework. We conclude that he has established he is eligible for and otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.