The Petitioner, a data scientist, 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).
USCIS denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the 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.
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
USCIS concluded that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she had not satisfied any of the prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework. The sole issue to be determined therefore is whether the Petitioner has met the Dhanasar requirements to establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest.
At the time of filing, the Petitioner indicated that she was serving "as a Manager of Data Science and Modeling atl 1"2 With respect to her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner's "Statement of Purpose - Proposed Endeavor" asserted:
My endeavor for the U.S. government focuses on developing an advanced Public Policy Perception Analysis platform using predictive modeling, natural language processing (NLP), and machine learning techniques. This initiative aims to leverage large-scale, real-time data from diverse sources-such as social media, news outlets, and public forums-to provide actionable insights into public sentiment regarding government policies.
By deploying sophisticated NLP models, the system can extract nuanced opinions, detect emerging trends, and identify key influencers in public discourse. Predictive analytics will then forecast how policy changes may affect public sentiment and societal outcomes, enabling policymakers to make more informed, data-driven decisions.
Ultimately, the goal is to optimize policy decisions, ensuring they align more closely with public opinion and needs, thereby enhancing governance and improving the quality of life for American citizens. This platform can also serve as a critical tool for crisis management, helping the government respond swiftly to public concerns and adjust policies in real time, ensuring more adaptive and effective governance.
The Petitioner discussed two projects involving "leveraging data-driven technologies to shape governance and policy strategies." She explained that her I I project, a collaboration between thel lserves as a pioneering example ofusing modem digital platforms and data-driven marketing techniques to reshape public perception." The Petitioner also noted that 2 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for her to have a job offer from a specific U.S. employer. However, we will consider information about her position to illustrate the capacity in which she intends to work in order to determine whether the proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar framework. p. 3 "[t]his project directly relates to the proposed Public Policy Perception Analysis endeavor by showcasing how predictive modeling and NLP could be applied in a similar context to analyze and predict the impact of such campaigns on recruitment efforts and broader public opinion." In addition, she stated that her '._________________, project focuses on developing a predictive model that forecasts political advertising spend during the 2024 election cycle. This model provides granular insights, broken down by state and week, helping non-political businesses optimize their media strategies and reduce the impact of high political ad clutter." The Petitioner farther asserted: "Launched in February 2024, thel Iproject has just wrapped up and will run for every election cycle."
In response to USCIS' request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a "Supplemental Statement of Endeavor" indicating: 'To be clear: I am not currentt invtved in the! Iproject, but the project is run by my employer's parent company, . Thisl Iproject is just one way I plan to use my Public Policy Perception Analysis platform to analyze and predict campaign impact on recruitment efforts and broader public opinion."3 She claimed that she "will leverage [her] employer relationship to engage in this collaboration." Additionally, the Petitioner maintained that her predictive model for "forecasting political advertising expenditures during the 2024 election cycle" "will continue to run in future election cycles."
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 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. We agree with USCIS' determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit.
USCIS concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. at 889. This consideration may include whether the 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 has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. USCIS determined the Petitioner did not establish the potential prospective impact of her proposed work. 4
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that USCIS' decision failed to properly apply the evidentiary standard and analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar and overlooked documentation demonstrating the 3 The record does not include evidence from the I lorDseeking or explaining the Petitioner's involvement in the project.
national importance ofher proposed endeavor. The Petitioner contends that USCIS' decision converts a prospective inquiry into a requirement of proven field wide adoption, imposes a government endorsement requirement not found in law, introduces a distinctiveness or superiority requirement beyond the first prong, elevates the burden of proof beyond preponderance of the evidence, conflates employer specific execution with lack of national importance, and reflects a segmented analysis that evaluates discrete fractures in isolation rather than assessing the cumulative probative value of the record.
While we acknowledge that USCIS' decision contains some problematic language, these minor errors are not so significant as to undermine the remaining reasons for denial. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with USCIS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor.
In addition to two statements discussing her proposed endeavor, the record includes articles about generative artificial intelligence in political advertising, big data's role in U.S. presidential elections, deep data and monetary investment as drivers of political advertising, political campaigns and big data, U.S. military recruitment and retainment spending, data science in the defense industry, and data analytics' impact on public policy. The Petitioner claims that these articles support the national importance of her proposed endeavor. The determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of one's field or industry in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."Proposed endeavor too vague Id. at 889. Here, none of the articles discuss any details relating to the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or otherwise speak to its potential prospective impact.
The Petitioner also provided letters of support from Dr. B-Z-, S-B-, A-M-M-, and A-E- who mainly discussed her data science and marketing analytics capabilities and experience. The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that she proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong.
Regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's prospective impact, S-B- asserted that the Petitioner's "innovations extend to the broader field of marketing analytics" and influence "best practices across the industry," but she does not offer any specific examples of such impact to support her assertion. Likewise, A-M-M- contended that "[t]he significance of [the Petitioner's] contributions extends beyond [her] individual projects. Her work has fundamentally influenced the field of advertising analytics by introducing novel approaches to creative and media optimization." A-M-M- further stated that the Petitioner's methodologies are "groundbreaking, setting a new standard for data-driven decision-making in the industry," but he did not elaborate on the specific ways the Petitioner's work "has fundamentally influenced the field of advertising analytics" or created "a new standard for datadriven decision-making in the industry" as claimed.Past record does not show influence or success Unsupported assertions and speculation have no evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish a filing party has satisfied their burden of proof See Matter ofMariscal-Hernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 666, 673 (BIA 2022). The Petitioner's letters of support do not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.No broader implications shown The Petitioner's references' p. 5 statements do not demonstrate how the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor stands to offer broader implications in her field or to generate substantial positive economic effects in the United States.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
In addition, the Petitioner presented an "Independent Expert Letter" from Dr. S-P- support of her national interest waiver. Dr. S-P- contends that the Petitioner's proposed work "has a national and even global impact," "has substantial positive economic effects," "impacts a matter that is the subject of national initiatives," and "will broadly enhance individual and societal welfare," but he does not identify any specific companies or organizations that have indicated they will rely on the Petitioner's Public Policy Perception Analysis platform or data-driven technologies in a manner indicative of broader implications to the field or substantial positive economic effects. The advisory opinion from Dr. S-P- does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work offers broader implications in her field or substantial positive economic effects for our nation that are indicative of its national importance.
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. The Petitioner' s statements reflect her intention to develop an advanced Public Policy Perception Analysis platform using predictive modeling, NLP, and machine learning techniques, but she has not offered sufficient infonnation 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 having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893 . Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that her specific proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her proposed projects and their users to impact the data science field, public policy, societal welfare, our country's national security interests, or the U.S . economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 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. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's 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 has other broader implications indicating national importance.
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not reach, and therefore reserve, determination of her eligibility under the second and p. 6 third prongs ofthe 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 Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe 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.
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. § 103.5(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 1-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.