The Petitioner, a staff product manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member ofthe 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. § l 153(b)(2).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) 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 professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act.
Ifa 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
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualified as an Alien with an advanced degree based on her 2016 Master of Science degree fro~ IThe remaining issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Dhanasar.
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 Petitioner ,,eks lo continue emnlorment as a staff product manager with! Ia division of the ~---------~]dedicated to advertising, developing privacy solutions in compliance with evolving digital privacy laws and regulations. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to continue development of a "cookie" free environment by developing an Artificial Intelligence (AI) driven advertising system. The Petitioner argues that her proposed endeavor is nationally important because it aligns with several government initiatives regarding cybersecurity and data protection. In addition, the Petitioner argues that her role allows her to "drive innovation in privacycentric advertising technologies." She further states that her work is essential to connecting consumers with small and medium sized businesses who advertise onl !website and "promotes a diverse and resilient economy."
In support of these assertions the Petitioner provided information related to the digital advertising industry, and a now revoked executive order regarding AI development2 , articles related to online
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that she believes she has met the requirements of Dhanasar by a preponderance of the evidence. She again highlights the importance o±i Ito the national economy, the level of consumer interest in safeguarding personal data in a digital environment, and her endeavor's alignment with the broader goals of the U.S. government around data protection and cyber security.
We acknowledge the Petitioner's claims thatl lis an integral part of the U.S. economy that employs more than a million individuals and can be a catalyst for improved economic growth in rural areas in which it operates, along with the fact that they have an annual ad revenue in excess of $3 billion with their digital advertising reaching more than 150 million Americans each year. However, benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not determinative of whether a person's endeavor has national importance. users Policy Alert PA-2025-03, Second Preference Eligibility for National Interest Waiver Petitions 13 (Jan. 15, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. At issue is whether the petitioner can demonstrate that their own individual endeavor stands to have broader implications, such as for a field, a region, or the public at large. users policy provides additional guidance relevant to the current Petitioner, it states: As an example, a person developing a particular technology for use or sale by a given company may not be able to establish national importance based on evidence that this technology will have benefits for the company or its clients alone. 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. Id.
Here the Petitioner has not claimed, or presented evidence to establish, that the development of I Iadvertising privacy solution would be shared with the broader industry in a way that would impact the development of similar products or that it would seek to monetize its internally developed solution sufficient to rise to the level ofnational importance. Moreover, while the Petitioner presented statistics on the number of individuals who are concerned with the use of their data online, she did not establish the impact her specific work for her employer would have in allaying the fears of those individuals.
To evaluate whether the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. Id. at 889. While the Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide privacy-centric advertising services for her employer, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer and its operations to impact the field of privacy centric advertising, the U.S. advertising industry, societal welfare, public safety, or our country's economy more broadly at a level p. 4 commensurate with national importance.No broader implications shown Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that her specific undertaking offers broader implications in the advertising, artificial intelligence, or cyber security industries.
Additionally, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.Job creation or economic claims unsupported While the Petitioner asserts that the national importance of her endeavor is evident from the scope ofl Ioperations, it has not demonstrated that the economic implications of its privacy centric advertising would be attributable to the Petitioner's specific projects to an extent that her proposed work holds national importance. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the wider economic effects attributable to I lare the result of her specific proposed endeavor. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's specific proposed work, the Petitioner has not shown that the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from her projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
The Petitioner has not established that her 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 industry, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance ofthe Beneficiary's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility for a national interest waiver. As this issue is dispositive ofthe Petitioner's appeal, we need not reach, and therefore reserve, determination of the Beneficiary's eligibility under the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision).
Conclusion
As the Beneficiary has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.