The Petitioner, a data scientist/researcher, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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).
In July 2023, Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not demonstrate her eligibility for a national interest waiver. In September 2023, SCOPS denied a motions to reopen and to reconsider. The Petitioner appealed SCOPS's denial of the motions to reopen and reconsider to us and we remanded the case back to SCOPS in April 2024 for further consideration. In February 2025, SCOPS denied the petition again. The matter is now before us on appeal of SCOPS' s February 2025 decision 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. p. 2 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.
Advanced Degree
In order to qualify for a national interest waiver, the Petitioner must first show that she qualifies for the EB-2 classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act, either as an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability. SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional based on her holding a master's degree in computational science and we agree.
On appeal, the Petitioner insists that we must also determine whether she is an individual of exceptional ability. Because we have determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act as an advanced degree professional, we need not reach whether the Petitioner also qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability. 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).
Ill. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER
In her initial petition1 the Petitioner stated that she is a doctoral candidate in information science at the I IThe Petitioner indicated that her proposed endeavor involved researching the creation of ethical frameworks outlining the principles and guidelines for the development of artificial intelligence (Al) in different fields. The Petitioner explained that her work would center on "fairness, transparency, privacy, and algorithm bias" and assist AI [artificial intelligence] developers "to anticipate, identify and address ethical issues regarding AI technologies."
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas 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. Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889.
In response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted eight exhibits in support of the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed endeavor: legislation called the Al in Government Act of 2020, the Blueprint for an Al Bill of Rights, legislation and executive orders under the National Al Initiative Office, the National Al Initiative Act of 2020, Office of Budget and Management (0MB) guidance for the regulation of AI, Executive Order 13859 "Maintaining American Leadership in AI," and recommendations from teachers at the I la professor of data science and an assistant clinical professor who teaches advanced data analytics courses. The letters of support for generally speak to the importance of Al-powered technologies and the need for an ethical framework, not the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or its national importance.3Support letters generic or unsupported
In its February 2025 decision, SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner established her proposed endeavor had substantial merit, but did not demonstrate the national importance of her proposed endeavor. SCOPS noted that the Petitioner submitted industry articles and reports about economic impacts and benefits in the field of endeavor. SCOPS found the evidence credible and helpful in establishing the potential need for ''artificial intelligence (Al) ethical frameworks that outline the principles and guidelines for Al development in different fields by studying impact of systems on, with emphasis on the elderly, women, people with disability, minority groups and veterans." However, SCOPS deteremined that this evidence was merely a positive factor, but not determinative of national importance.
On appeal, in support of the national importance of her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner submits a White House Fact Sheet regarding President Trump taking action to enhance America's AI leadership, executive orders and 0MB guidance addressing the importance of Al; resubmitted a letter of recommendation of a data science professor at the I ~ho taught the Petitioner in a seminar in the spring of 2022; and resubmitted a letter from al !clinical assistant professor who knows the Petitioner through their unspecified "professional engagements." In addition, the Petitioner submits a letter from an assistant professor in the department of decision and system sciences at,_______________,letter) who "independently reviewed" the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, educational background, resume, scholarly track record and teaching assessments available to him. This recommender summarized the Petitioner's research approach, but stated that he wished to "reiterate" that he cannot speak to knowledge ofthe Petitioner's "professional abilities" and mostly talked generally about Al ethical issues rather than specifically discussing the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.Proposed endeavor too vague Therefore, the I lletter is not probative of whether the proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance.
On appeal, the Petitioner points to the USCIS policy manual indicating that it discusses endeavors related to research, pure science, and the furtherance of human knowledge and that these may qualify a proposed endeavor as having national importance, whether or not the endeavor is likely to translate to economic benefits for the United States.4 The Petitioner asserts that her proposed endeavor in Al ethics is related to research, science, and the furtherance of human knowledge as discussed in the USCIS policy manual. Further, the Petitioner emphasizes guidance related to STEM (science, technology, engineering, or mathematics) fields and national importance included in the USCIS policy manual encouraging the consideration of proposed endeavors aimed at advancing STEM technologies and research when assessing national importance.5
The Petitioner contends that SCOPS did not apply the proper standard by requiring that she demonstrate substantial positive economic effects and improperly denied the petition by not considering the potential impact of her proposed endeavor on critical and emerging STEM technologies. In addition, the Petitioner points to the letters submitted from her professors and other experts that discuss the national importance of her endeavor and asserts that these are consistent with the evidence considered in Dhanasar.
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.6 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.7 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.8 Here, the Petitioner has not shown that her endeavor aims to advance STEM technologies and research or has broad implications rather than providing her limited professional contribution by working within a STEM profession.
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national impmiance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her 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 detennined 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 the Petitioner's proposed endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her research to impact the field, or the U.S. economy, more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
B. Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. To determine whether they are well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Id.
Without analysis, SCOPS found that the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Upon de nova review, we disagree. While the Petitioner has conducted and presented research during her graduate studies, she has not shown that this work renders her well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. While we recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way to be accepted for publication, presentation, funding, or academic credit, not every individual who has performed original research will be found to be well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Rather, we examine the factors set forth in Dhanasar to determine if, for instance, the individual's progress towards achieving the goals of the proposed research, record of success in similar efforts, or generation of interest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890.
The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the Al field or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the Al community. In support of being well-positioned for her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner submitted a letter showing a promotion to assistant manager at abank in June 2012; an invitation to be a research graduate assistant in the Spring of 2017; and, an award for best poster as third author for on the subject of l I a paper which is not in the p. 6 framework. Therefore, we withdraw SCOPS finding that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.
C. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial
The third prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate 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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884. However, as the Petitioner has not established that she meets the first and second prong of the Dhanasar framework, she has not shown that she is eligible for and otherwise merits a national interest waiver, and we therefore reserve the Petitioner's arguments with respect to this issue. See Bagamasbad at 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
The Petitioner has not shown that she is eligible for and otherwise merits a national interest waiver of that classification's job offer requirement.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed