The Petitioner 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner met the requirements for a waiver of the job offer and labor certification requirements for EB-2 classification. 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) 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
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
The Petitioner seeks to come to the United States to engage in research activity and pursue a position as a lecturer. In her personal statement provided to the Director she states:
My proposed endeavor is to apply computer science principles to yield new insights into business processes and organizational design in order to enhance organizational performance, bolster competitiveness, optimize cost management, and improve customer satisfaction ... I intend to pursue a position as a lecturer in the United States. I am most interested in pursuing this position with Harvard Business School. My planned research topics include evaluation of key performance indicators and critical success factors of Internet of Things, enhanced organizational performance through agile business processes and organizational design and smart sustaining business performance management.
The Director determined that the Petitioner met the education requirements for EB-2 classification but that her proposed endeavor was not defined well enough to establish substantial merit and national importance.Proposed endeavor too vague Moreover, the Director requested additional evidence that the Petitioner met the other two prongs of the Dhanasar framework. In response, the Petitioner provided an additional brief from her attorney, a second statement from the Petitioner regarding her proposed endeavor, articles authored by the Petitioner, citation records, articles regarding the benefits of research related to business operations, and USCIS policy documents.
In her second personal statement the Petitioner contends that the focus of her proposed endeavor is her research activities and not her position as a lecturer. She reiterates the claims made in her initial personal statement regarding the use of technology to optimize business operations across a broad range of industries. She also provides additional clarification on her proposed research: I intend to investigate how emerging technologies such as Internet of Things can be integrated into existing business processes to drive innovation, improve agility, and enhance competitiveness.
She goes on to state:
In this research project, I will explore how organizations can effectively leverage big data to optimize operations, make informed decisions, and drive innovation. To pursue this research, a multi-faceted approach will be taken. Initially, a thorough review of existing literature on big data integration in business processes and organization design will be conducted to understand current trends, challenges, and best practices.
Subsequently, empirical research using case studies, surveys, and interviews with p. 3 industry experts will be carried out to assess real-world applications and outcomes of integrating big data into existing business operations and structures.
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor lacked both substantial merit and national importance because she was unable to define the impact of her research or how it would influence her field of study. The Director further found that the Petitioner was not well-positioned to advance her endeavor because she was unable to demonstrate any prospective interest in her research or establish that she has made strides in securing the funding or employment necessary to achieve her proposed endeavor.No interest from users, customers or investors The Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not established her research activities or employment as a lecturer was in the best interests of the United States under the third prong of Dhanasar.
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.
As described above, the Petitioner intends to engage in research designed to optimize business operations through the use of big data and generative artificial intelligence and serve as a lecturer in a university setting. The Petitioner has articulated a clear avenue of research that has substantial merit. Therefore, we withdraw the Director's decisions as it relates to the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner argues on appeal that the Director did not consider the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the appropriate standard of proof. The Petitioner re-iterates the arguments made to the Director, specifically, that U.S. businesses lose money due to being inefficient and that the Petitioner's proposed research into methods and tools to increase productivity could save U.S. corporations a substantial amount of money. The Petitioner also notes that several organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have emphasized the importance of integrating computer science advancements to boost global competitiveness. The opinion articles from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Information Technology Industry Council do not specifically cite to the Petitioner's work. Other than her own assertions, the Petitioner has provided little evidence to support her claims that her work would be nationally important or have the tendency to influence her field of research.
Despite the Petitioner's claims on appeal, there is very little evidence that the Petitioner's proposed research will have broad impacts on the field of either computer science or business. The Petitioner's proposed survey of past literature and current business practices does not establish that the potential prospective impact of her work will be anything more than a nominal expansion of existing knowledge. In its present form, this is comparable to Dhanasar's teaching activities that did not rise to the level of national importance because they would not "impact the field of [ science, technology, engineering, and math] education more broadly." Id. The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's proposed research would impact the field of business or computer science in the United p. 4 States more broadly. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that her research into leveraging big data to optimize business operations has a likelihood to impact any individual organization or group of organizations. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is an interest in her work in this field or that her methods or understanding ofthe topic is significantly more detailed than that already available. The Petitioner provided evidence of her work as a peer-reviewer but does not provide a clear link between her review work and her proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's discussion of her proposed research is overly broad and lacks the specific details required to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor. Moreover, like the petitioner in Dhanasar, the Petitioner has not shown that her duties as a lecturer in the United States would likewise have an impact rising to the level ofnational importance. Id.
B. Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. To determine whether they are well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals.Past record does not show influence or success Id.
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor based on her history of academic and professional success. The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during her graduate studies and professional career, but she has not shown that this work renders her well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. While we recognize that research must add information to the pool ofknowledge in some way to be accepted for publication, presentation, fonding, or academic credit, not every individual who has performed original research will be found to be well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Rather, we examine the factors set forth in Dhanasar to determine i±: for instance, the individual's progress towards achieving the goals ofthe proposed research, record of success in similar efforts, or generation of interest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890.
The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that her published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the computer science or business fields or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the business community. The Petitioner has not shown that her past research has contributed to the profitability, efficiency, or decision making of an organization or entity. Nor does the evidence otherwise show that her work constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing research relating to business optimization through the implementation of computer science principals. Moreover, while the Petitioner claims to seek a position as a lecturer at an organization like Harvard Business School, she has not provided any evidence to show that she has received interest from any organization in the United States to take up such a position and perform her research or explained how she would complete her proposed endeavor if she were unable to secure a position as a lecturer. Similarly, the Petitioner has not shown that she has secured fonding for her research, applied for grants, or engaged with the entities or individuals she wishes to study. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that she has made progress towards achieving her proposed endeavor or generated interest among relevant parties as required under Dhanasar. As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that p. 5 the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her proposed research endeavor, she has not established that she satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States
As explained above, the third prong requires the 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. Here, the Petitioner claims that she is eligible for a waiver due to the importance of her field and the impracticality of labor certification. However, as the Petitioner has not established that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor as required by the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver and farther discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first or second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.