The Petitioner, a computer scientist, 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).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus ofthe 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 of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo'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 l&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).
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on his foreign master's degree. The record shows that the Petitioner has a master's degree in electrical engineering from a university in the Republic ofKorea. The remaining issue to be determined on appeal 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.
The Petitioner is a Ph.D. researcher who is currently conducting research to address spectrum scarcity. He explained that, as wireless demand increases, efficient spectrum sharing is essential to avoid interference between users. His work focuses on ensuring that high-priority services like healthcare devices and autonomous vehicles, which increasingly rely on seamless connectivity, can operate reliably in congested environments. He intends to continue developing artificial intelligence (AI) models designed to detect and prioritize critical wireless signals. Through his research, he aims to "optimize spectrum sensing, resource allocation, and interference mitigation in 5G, 6G, and Next-G networks" and "to ensure seamless communication in vital applications like radar detection, vehicleto-everything (V2X) technologies, autonomous traffic systems, and AI-enabled digital healthcare."
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and that he is well positioned to advance the endeavor. SCOPS concluded, however, that the record did not establish that the endeavor is of national importance or that it would be beneficial to the United States to grant a waiver of the job offer requirement. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the evidence of record establishes his eligibility, stating that SCOPS did not fully analyze the evidence provided. Upon review, for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
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. The relevant question is not the importance of the 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. In Matter ofDhanasar, 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. If the evidence of record demonstrates that an p. 3 individual's proposed endeavor has the significant potential to, for example, contribute to the advancement ofa valuable technology or field ofstudy, it may rise to the level ofnational importance. 2 Regarding an endeavor in the fields of science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM), importance may be found in its contribution to U.S. competitiveness or security in a variety ofcircumstances, such as when it will help the United States remain ahead of strategic competitors or current and potential adversaries. 3Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's
USCIS recognizes the importance of progress in STEM fields and the essential role of persons with advanced STEM degrees, especially in focused critical and emerging technologies or other STEM areas important to U.S. competitiveness or national security. 4 However, a proposed endeavor does not necessarily carry national importance based solely on its relationship to a critical and emerging technology; when evaluating the national importance of a proposed endeavor, it is not the overall importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual intends to work, but the particular endeavor on which an individual intends to embark. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
To provide context concerning the national importance of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner submitted information about wireless connectivity, personalized medicine markets, digital healthcare, the transportation industry and the U.S. economy, and vehicle automation and communication technology. He also submitted research papers he co-authored and letters of support from individuals who work in his field and who have knowledge of his research. The documentation conveys the national importance ofresearch to ensure fast and effective wireless connectivity and the necessity of collective research efforts to achieve goals in the public interest. It does not, however, clarify how the Petitioner's endeavor to continue his individual research will have a level of impact on a field indicative of national importance. It is not the overall importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual intends to work, but the particular endeavor on which an individual intends to embark that we consider in evaluating whether it is of national importance. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
To explain his past research projects, the Petitioner submitted correspondence from several individuals who are familiar with his work on improving connectivity for healthcare devices. Letters from an associate professor at thel land from a research associate atl I discuss the Petitioner's creation of a hybrid network combining Wi-Fi and power line communication. The researcher from~emphasizes that the Petitioner's work is vital in large, dense hospitals, and that "by improving connectivity in a healthcare environment, he enhances reliable patient monitoring and eHealth management systems, allowing healthcare professionals to focus on delivering highquality care." A letter from an associate professor of engineering atl Istates that the Petitioner's connectivity work is helpful for seizure alerts, remote cardiac monitoring, and respiratory failure detection, because brief communication delays or interruptions with wireless devices can lead to fatalities. His connectivity framework, the letter states, "ensures that life-critical data receives transmission priority across wireless networks, enhancing the practicality of a spectrum of medical devices."
These letters gesture to the significance of the Petitioner's research and refer to it in terms indicating that it is being actively applied. They do not, however, explain how or whether his findings have been or can be applied in real-world settings or how his specific work has implications for advancements in spectrum connectivity on a broader scale, instead generally referencing its potential and importance.No broader implications shown For example, a letter from a senior research fellow at the.______________. asserts that the Petitioner's "frameworks are critical to maintaining EMS [ electromagnetic spectrum] dominance, enabling resilient defense communications, and reinforcing U.S. 1~in cognitive spectrum warfare and policy-aware spectrum operations." According to the L___J associate professor, the Petitioner's work "holds the key to unlocking the transformative power of intelligent, equitable healthcare infrastructure ...." A letter from an assistant professor atl I speaks to his research developing systems that detect traffic speeds, identify epilepsy seizure patterns, and classify respiratory diseases, stating that his work has "yielded immense benefits in safeguarding human lives ...." The record, however, does not contain documentation to corroborate the claimed impacts or outcomes of the Petitioner's work. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. It is not evident how the Petitioner's individual research and findings, as described, rise to the level of national importance. In addition to the letters describing his research, the Petitioner included documentation of citations to his work in research papers on traffic violation detection systems, neurological disorder diagnostic model using deep learning, and epileptic seizure detection. While it is evident that his research has contributed to larger bodies of research involving AI applications within various fields, it is not clear how his specific endeavor will have broader implications for a particular field. The Petitioner's assertions concerning the importance of his proposed endeavor primarily focus on the public interest in maintaining fast and consistent wireless connectivity, as opposed to the prospective impact of his role as an individual researcher among others in the field. Although the record shows that the Petitioner's work has been used by others for their similar research in the field, the record does not show how his research would have an impact within the field on a scale commensurate with national importance.
The Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that the record "includes statistics and current research highlighting the ongoing need for novel AI-driven models to optimize wireless networks," and that, "[g]iven this evidence, it is clear that [his] proposed endeavor is of substantial merit and national importance." While we agree that the endeavor has substantial merit, it is not the proverbial value of the field in which an individual intends to work, but the particular endeavor an individual intends to pursue that we consider when assessing its national importance. Matter ofDhanasar at 26 T&N Dec. at 889.
The record does not establish the national importance ofthe proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor has national importance. As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The petition will remain denied.
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.S(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 I-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.