The Petitioner, a research 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 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).
SCOPS denied the petition. SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. However, SCOPS concluded that the record does not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, would 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 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.
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 the proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
SCOPS found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. However, for the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id.
The Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan "to develop state-of-the-art machine learning models for identifying trademark misuse and fraudulent advertising to prevent scams and data phishing and apply transfer learning techniques in single-cell RNA sequence data to discriminate between rare tumor cell types." The Petitioner elaborated that she would pursue the endeavor by continuing her employment "as a research scientist at ... for the foreseeable future." She generally asserted that her "research at is romoted at the national level throu h thei SCOPS recognized "the importance of progress in [ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)] fields." However, SCOPS observed that the record "does not establish that the [Petitioner's] endeavor stands to sufficiently impact the STEM fields more broadly at a level with [ n ]ational [i]mportance." For example, SCOPS noted that memoranda and articles in the record providing generalized information regarding information technology "address[] the broad fields of [artificial intelligence] and [machine learning] as a whole, rather than [the Petitioner's] specific endeavor." SCOPS also observed that the record does not establish whether the proposed endeavor may "have national or global implications within the field [or] have significant potential to employ U.S. workers," referencing the first Dhanasar prong.Job creation or economic claims unsupported See id. Based on those issues, SCOPS determined that the record does not establish whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance, as required in part by the first Dhanasar prong. In a prior request for evidence (RFE), SCOPS summarily concluded that "the [Petitioner's] work as a research scientist ... has substantial merit," as required in part by the first Dhanasar prong and that the record "satisf1ies] the second prong of the Dhanasar framework." However, SCOPS ultimately concluded that the record "does not support 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," as required by the third Dhanasar prong.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification See id.
Because we determine that the record does not establish whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance, which is dispositive, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as required in part by the first Dhanasar prong, and whether the record satisfies the second and third Dhanasar 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). On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that her endeavor has national importance, and she addresses information in the record. Specifically, the Petitioner discusses a letter confirming the Petitioner's p. 3 employment, a personal statement from the Petitioner, a recommendation letter from .... I _______,
I land a one-page excerpt from a press release published by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The Petitioner asserts that "the benefits of [her] proposed research extend well beyond her employer, facilitating improved cancer diagnosis and treatment throughout the United States and protecting countless Americans from fraud and counterfeit goods."
In determining national importance under the first Dhanasar prong, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the [individual] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or those with "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90.
The one-page employment confirmation letter provides limited relevant information for determining whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance. The letter contains generalized information regarding!Support letters generic or unsupported Iit confirms the Petitioner's full-time employment since 2021, and it summarizes her research scientist duties as follows:
- Build ra matic, scalable, and statistically rigorous solutions to I L infrastructure ing or developing state-of-the-
~ oo~~L I
'--------,,--------------~ unparalleled '-------,=====::::!-----------.
- Build and maintain experiments, forecasting p. 4 analysis research. Although a petitioner may pursue multiple objectives in various manners as part of the same proposed endeavor, in this case, the limited information in the record regarding how, where, and when the Petitioner would conduct her proposed scRNA-seq data analysis casts doubt on whether the endeavor would actually involve such research, minimizing the reliability and sufficiency of her personal statement and, by extension, the remainder of the record. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (providing that doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition). Even to the extent that the Petitioner's personal statement may be deemed reliable and sufficient, it substantially focuses on the industry, field, or profession in which she will work, providing limited information regarding the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake. For example, the statement provides generalized information re ardin "the national importance of solving trademark scam and counterfeit problems on ," "the national importance of._________________________,," and "the national importance of trademark and logo detection from different perspectives," rather than focusing on the specific endeavor's potential prospective impact. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. The personal statement also contains 19 end notes citing various publications dated between 2014 and 2024; however, those publications do not appear to address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake, and how the endeavor may have the type of broader implications contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. Instead, the publications appear to provide the generalized industry information on which the Petitioner's personal statement focuses.
As noted above, the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work is not the relevant question to determine whether a proposed endeavor may have national importance. See id. In determining whether an endeavor implicating STEM fields may have national importance, as in all cases, the record must establish that the specific proposed endeavor-rather than the occupational classification, field, or industry in general-has national importance, as provided in Dhanasar, such as by broadly impacting the relevant STEM field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l)-(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Neither the Petitioner's personal statement nor the remainder of the record provide probative, objective information regarding how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications within the field of information technology or any other particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances, or substantial positive economic effects. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. In tum, as SCOPS noted, the Petitioner does not assert-and the record does not support the conclusion-that the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have significant potential to employ U.S. workers. See id. We acknowledge that the Petitioner's personal statement asserts, "The result of the research will not only be applied inl Isystem to widely protect businesse,..;:.s....:.a.:....n....:.d:....JpL:...e:....:o~p....:.le.:........:.o_n-========,-----~ but also be presented and published in computer vision and I Iconferences."
However, neither the Petitioner's personal statement nor the remainder of the record establishes how applying the research to the particular products and services~provides, or publishing the research in conferences will have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance, discussed above. See id.
I
Next, the one-page recommendation letter in the record froml !comments that the Petitioner's "research is focused onl Ifor scRNA-seq data analysis." However, as noted above, only a portion of the Petitioner's research purports to be "focused onl for scRNA-seq data analysis," as the recommendation letter asserts, and the record does not establish how, when, and where the Petitioner would conduct that research while also conducting unrelated research as a foll-time research scientist at.__ _________, The remainder of the letter provides abstract and conclusory statements, such as what "researchers can find," why scRNA-seq data analysis "is an important technique," and that.__ _______________,"help ... examin[e] large volumes of data." The recommendation letter does not provide farther insight regarding how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications within the field of information technology or any other particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances, or other indicia of national importance. See id. Rather, the recommendation letter broadly opines that "[the Petitioner's] area of expertise directly aligns with the goals of the [National Institutes of Health]." As explained above, the focus of determining national importance is on the specific endeavor a petitioner proposes to undertake, not the importance of the generalized industry, field, profession, or area of expertise in which an individual will work. See id. Because the recommendation letter addresses generalized information rather than explaining how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national importance, and because the record casts doubt on whether the Petitioner would conduct the type of research the opinion letter discusses, we need not address it farther. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591.
Finally, the excerpt from the FTC press release, titled "As Nationwide Fraud Losses Top $10 Billion in 2023, FTC Steps Up Efforts to Protect the Public," does not establish whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance. It does not discuss the Petitioner, the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake, and how the specific endeavor may have broader implications indicative of national importance, such as certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances with national or global implications, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or other substantial positive economic effects. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Rather, it provides generalized information regarding broad categories of fraud in which American consumers lost money in 2023, such as "investment scams," "imposter scams," and "[o]nline shopping issues." Because the FTC press release does not address how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have indicia ofnational importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong, we need not address it further.
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.