The Petitioner, a lead data engineer, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or of exceptional ability, Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this employment based second preference (EB-2) classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus ofthe labor certification, would not 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 ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&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 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. Because this classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest.
Whilst neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that USCIS may as a matter of discretion grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the labor certification, to a petitioner p. 2 classified in the EB-2 category if he or she demonstrates that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, (2) the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and (3) 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.
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor the alien proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range ofareas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact.
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the alien. To determine whether the alien is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also key considerations.
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the alien's qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the alien to secure a job offer or for the petition to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the alien's contributions; and whether the national interest in the alien's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, indicate 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.
Analysis
The Beneficia obtained a master of science de ree in computer and information science fromD _____________________ __, in 2016. He has been employed by the
Petitioner as a lead data engineer since June 2023. The Beneficiary's proposed endeavor is to "manage ARR [ Annual Recurring Revenue] and EAR [Expiring Annual Revenue]" for the Petitioner. The stated aim of the endeavor is to foster the Petitioner's "business performance and competitiveness, facilitating mergers and acquisitions, and encouraging investment in the workforce" with an aspiration to play a role "in supporting the broader technological and economic landscape of the United States." The Director determined the Beneficiary qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. However, the Director found that while the proposed endeavor had substantial merit, the Petitioner had not demonstrated its national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong, or the Beneficiary's eligibility under the second 1 and third prongs ofDhanasar 's framework. 1 The Director concluded the Beneficiary was not well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner did not meaningfully address the positioning of the Beneficiary to advance the proposed endeavor other than in p. 3 To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality, including relevance, probative value, and credibility, of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989).
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we noted that, in assessing national importance, "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 at 890. 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.
The Petitioner initially submitted the Beneficiary's personal biographical and educational documents, a letter from the Petitioner's "VP of BI and Analytics," a letter from the Petitioner's "VP Corporate Development and Chief ofStaff:" an article from a website maintained by EY discussing "the potential benefits" of "data centricity," an "InfoBrief' from IDC about "using data intelligently," copies of executive orders ( at least one of which has since been rescinded) and three, five, and nine year old National Science and Technology Council and Department of Homeland Security reports relating to aspects of information technology the Petitioner claims are pertinent to the proposed endeavor, documentation pertaining to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields and disciplines, and the Petitioner's corporate governance, financial and registration documents. In response to SCOPS' RFE, the Petitioner submitted an ex ert o inion letter authored b Dr. rofessor in the department of computer science at.__ _______________________
The Petitioner also submitted articles about ARR and documentation describing the Beneficiary's employment performance and a project he completed during his graduate studies atl I On appeal, the Petitioner provides a brief and resubmits its initial petition support letter. According to the Petitioner, SCOPS erred by overlooking evidence, specifically "multiple letters of support, reports from third parties, prior government guidance related to a directly related field of Artificial Intelligence, many articles related Artificial Intelligence," and did not apply the preponderance of the a vague assertion of eligibility in a single sentence grounded in the fact the Beneficiary is employed by the Petitioner.Support letters generic or unsupported But, the Petitioner does not sufficiently describe how the Beneficiary's employment with the Petitioner demonstrates his education, skill, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar efforts, a model or plan for future activities related to the proposed endeavor that the individual developed or played a significant role in developing, any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and the interest or support garnered by the individual from potential customers, users, investor, or other relevant entities or persons.Past record does not show influence or success The Petitioner also did not highlight any specific error in SCOPS evaluation of eligibility under Dhanasar 's second prong. A mere passing reference in a brief will not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal. Karsjens v. Harpstead, 74 F.4th 561, 568 n.3 (8th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, No. 23-642, 2024 WL 674802 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2024) (quoting Sitzer v. Nat'l Ass 'n ofRealtors, 12 F.4th 853, 855 n.2 (8th Cir. 2021 ). Assertions that do not meaningfully challenge an aspect of an underlying decision are deemed waived on appeal. Matter ofGarcia, 28 T&N Dec. 693, 693 (BIA 2023). So, the Petitioner's choice to eschew a meaningful claim of eligibility under Dhanasar 's second prong in the face of SCOPS conclusion of ineligibility in the decision below is the Petitioner's waiver of that issue on appeal and requires dismissal of this appeal on a basis separate and distinct from the Petitioner's ineligibility under Dhanasar 's first prong as discussed in this non-precedent decision. p. 4 evidence standard.2 However, the Petitioner does not identify examples in support of its assertion. Upon de novo review we conclude, for the reasons discussed below, the Director properly evaluated the evidence in determining the Petitioner had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed endeavor has national importance.
The Petitioner claims the "prior reports, articles, government related information" are directly related to the field and proposed endeavor. As we stated earlier, the Petitioner's endeavor essentially consists of his "manage[ ment of] ARR [ Annual Recurring Revenue] and EAR [Expiring Annual Revenue]" for the Petitioner. Most of the articles and reports the Petitioner submitted into the record pertained to information technology in general. Two articles the Petitioner submitted explained what ARR is. This evidence supported the overall merit of the Petitioner's proposed field of endeavor. So, as we stated earlier, the Director correctly concluded the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit. But the same evidence does not adequately describe how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor demonstrates it has national or even global implications in the particular field, would broadly implicate matters rising to a level of national importance in the field, or confer positive economic effects.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Whilst the "prior reports, articles, and government related information" discuss the impact, importance, or merit of the broad field of cloud computing, artificial intelligence, or even the allencompassing field of information technology in general, the documents do not specifically discuss how "manage[ ment] of ARR [ Annual Recurring Revenue] and EAR [Expiring Annual Revenue]" for the Petitioner would have potential prospective impact in the form of national, or even global, implications to the field(s) the Petitioner identified or exert broader implications rising to a level of national importance.
The Petitioner also asserts the record below included substantial information of the impact of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor on critical U.S. economic, national security, and technological interests to demonstrate its national importance by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner contends its standing within its industry allows it to contribute significant revenue annually to the U.S. economy and the Beneficiary's contributions to the Petitioner facilitates its promulgation of cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. The Petitioner then reasons that by managing its ARR and EAR, the Beneficiary will support critical U.S. national economic interests and goals with respect to job creation, technological advancement, and national security. But the evidence in the record does not materially, relevantly, or probatively demonstrate that the Petitioner's ongoing economic health and ability to engage in business growth activities in its field attributable to the Beneficiary's management of its ARR and EAR exerts national, or even global, implications to the fields or have broader implications that demonstrate the national importance ofthe proposed endeavor.Proposed endeavor too vague We acknowledge the Petitioner's financial documents and its assertions describing its reputation and stature in its field. However, the Petitioner cannot rely on its revenue and impact within the field to claim the Beneficiary's work is nationally important. 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 USCIS Policy Alert PA-2025-03, Second Preference Eligibility for National Interest Waiver Petitions 13 (Jan. 15, 2025), 2 The Petitioner notes SCOPS decision incorrectly refers to the Beneficiary as a self-petitioner when in fact it had filed, signed, and dated the 1-140 petition and provided its federal employer identification number. We have reviewed SCOPS decision and conclude this misidentification is de minimis and does not materially influence any legal basis for SCOPS' conclusions in its decision. p. 5 https://www.uscis.gov/ sites/default/files/ document/policy-manual-updates/20250115-EmploymentBasedN ationallnterestWaivers. pdf (providing, as guidance, factors to consider in analyzing national importance). At issue is whether the petitioner can demonstrate that the individual endeavor stands to have broader implications, such as for a field, a region, or the public at large. Id. Here, the Petitioner has not shown, for example, how the specific functions and tasks carried out by the Beneficiary in the proposed endeavor would have broader implications amounting to national importance.No broader implications shown Aside from general unsupported assertions, the record does not contain any financial analysis or details supporting how the Beneficiary's proposed services affect the Petitioner's revenue such that it would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or "other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area."Claims not backed by documents See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90.
We also recognize that the Beneficiary's work touches upon technological areas that are U.S government priorities and is a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) related profession. However, merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Id. at 889 (in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake").
Moreover, to establish broader public or commercial implications at a level consistent with national importance for this field or industry, a petitioner could demonstrate, through the submission ofrelevant evidence, widespread interest in adoption or licensing of the technology, a novel and important manufacturing or operational process, or how the technology stands to impact the development of similar technology by other companies. See generally USCIS Policy Alert PA-2025-03, supra atl3 (providing, as guidance, examples of how a petitioner may demonstrate a beneficiary's endeavor has national importance). The Petitioner here has not made such a showing. The Petitioner submitted a letter from its "VP ofBI and Analytics," and a letter from the Petitioner's "VP Corporate Development and Chief of Staff." But the letters do not support the national importance of the Beneficiary's endeavor. For example, the Petitioner's "VP of BI and Analytics" plainly states that the Beneficiary's role in "developing and implementing an in-house Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) Business Intelligence (BI) solution" is "catered to [its] specific needs." It is not apparent how ARR "cater[ing] to [the Petitioner's] specific needs" would nationally, or even globally impact the field or have broader implications to cloud computing, artificial intelligence, or even information technology broadly. Or in other words, it is not clear from the letter how the Petitioner's fostering of the Petitioner's "business performance and competitiveness, facilitating mergers and acquisitions, and encouraging investment in the workforce" by and through taking advantage of the Beneficiary's services "mange[ing] ARR and EAR" would play a nationally important role "in supporting the broader technological and economic landscape of the United States." It is more evident that the Beneficiary's activities under the Petitioner's direction "catered to [its] specific needs" only, and not matters with national, or even global, implications to the field or broader implications rising to a level of national importance. And the letter of the Petitioner's "VP Corporate Development and Chief of Staff'' similarly describes the Beneficiary's anticipated services as "critical for the [Petitioner's] performance and strategic initiatives" and contributive to its economic growth and job creation. But the letter does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Petitioner's economic growth and job creation spurred by the Beneficiary's prospective performance "manage[ing] [the Petitioner's] ARR and EAR" translates to national, or even global implications to the field or broader implications ascendant to a level p. 6 commensurate with national importance. Or in other words, it is not evident from material, relevant, or probative evidence in the record why the Petitioner's anticipated prosperity, financial health, and growth ambitions would extend beyond the immediate sphere of its own benefit to prospectively positively influence matters of national, or even global, implication on the field or with broader implications at a level.
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. See Matter ofCaron Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, the submission ofletters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Moreover, letters from relevant third-party reviewers such as prospective investors, retailers, or other industry experts will generally be more persuasive to support the merits of an entrepreneur's business, business plan, product, or technology. The Petitioner commissioned a letter from I Iprofessor, department of computer science, ___________
. We observe that the letter's content lacks relevance when it comes to the evaluation of whether the Petitioner's endeavor rises to a level of national importance. For example, in addressing the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor, the writer discussed the general benefit to the United States of cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning given the Petitioner's presence in that field. However, aside from an overarching statement that the Petitioner's endeavor would operate in this field and that the Petitioner had experience in the field, the writer does not specifically identify how the Petitioner's utilizing and realizing the benefits of the Beneficiary's services would impact the filed or positive economic effect in a manner implicating matters of national importance or what broader implications emanate from the endeavor and not simply from the Petitioner's continued profitable existence and operation in the field. Or in other words, the letter overwhelmingly only discusses the importance of the Petitioner's field as well as the Petitioner's previous experiences. But this does not relate or correspond to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In sum, the expert opinion letter does not provide any meaningful analysis of the endeavor's broader implications or potential prospective economic impact rising to the level of national importance. Consequently, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor is of national importance.
The Petitioner has not established the national importance ofthe Beneficiary's proposed endeavor. As the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the remaining argument raised by the Petitioner concerning the Beneficiary's eligibility under Dhanasar 's third prongs 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); see also Matter of L-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
As the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary meets the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, it consequently has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for or other merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.