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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner had not established eligibility for 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 of proof 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 Christo '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 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature).
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
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 provided two statements regarding his proposed endeavor, wherein he stated his intention to continue working as an Electronic and Electrical Engineer and discussed his research and development projects, including his short- and long-term research plans.
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not the national importance, of the proposed endeavor. 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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
In Dhanasar, we noted that "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. 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. at 890.
The Petitioner contends that his endeavor falls within a STEM (science, technology, engineering, or mathematics) profession. With respect to the first prong, as in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. 2 Many proposed endeavors that aim to advance STEM technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, not only have substantial merit in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, but also have sufficiently broad potential implications to demonstrate national importance. 3 On the other hand, while proposed classroom teaching activities in STEM, for example, may have substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational interests, such activities, by themselves, generally are not indicative of an impact in the field of STEM education more broadly, and therefore generally would not establish their national importance. 4 Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his endeavor has broad implications rather than providing his limited professional services by working within a STEM profession. 2 See generally 5 USCIS Policy Manual D.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual.
On appeal, although the Petitioner contends that his personal statement and the underlying record discussed the importance ofimage sensor technology, the National Science and Technology Council's List of Critical and Emerging Technologies List, and the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act, the matter here is not whether these initiatives, as well as the topics of semiconductors, automated vehicle technology, or similarly related subjects, are nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his services as an Electronic and Electrical Engineer.
The Petitioner presented a letter5 from. ___________. who found the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance. The letter emphasized that the Petitioner "has consistently achieved impactful research results" and noted their belief that the Petitioner "will endure in delivering optimal solutions for the development of state-of-the-art, high-performance electronic devices." Similarly, the letter froml Idiscussed the Petitioner's prior research success and his "excellent technical skill set," but did not provide any discussion regarding the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. In the Petitioner's response to a request for evidence (RFE), he provided additional letters in support of his prior research and skills, however, the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities 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. These letters discuss the impact of the Petitioner's prior efforts, but do not discuss the broader impact ofhis proposed endeavor or analysis ofhis proposed future research projects.Proposed endeavor too vague As noted, as the letters cover the Petitioner's prior work and accomplishments, they relate more to the second prong rather than the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Id. at 890.
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his employment and research would largely influence the field and rise to the level of national importance.Past record does not show influence or success In Dhanasar, we determined 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. The record does not show through supporting documentation how his endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his employers, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis ofthe Petitioner's eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 6
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 5 Although we do not discuss each piece of evidence in detail, we have reviewed and considered each one. 6 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). p. 4 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.