The Petitioner, a graduate student researcher in artificial intelligence (Al), seeks second preference immigrant classification (EB-2) as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 immigrant 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 the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. SCOPS did not make a finding on whether the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. The matter is now before us on appeal 1 pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter afChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis.
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.
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 2 Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. See 1 The Petitioner's signatures on appeal, in both Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, and Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, appear to be different from his signatures in the initial filing. 2 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii).
I generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. If a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree ofexpertise and will substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States. 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,3 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
The Petitioner is a graduate student researcher who completed a bachelor's degree program in computer science and technology au Iin China and soon after began his Ph.D. program in computer science at the L I At the time of filing, the Petitioner was "working on fast serving framework for large language models LLMs] and vision language models, i.e. SGLang [Structure Generation Language for LLMs ]" at for about two months. The Petitioner's resume indicates that he also worked as a research assistant at Ifor 11 months, and at.__ ________.for five months. ~--~ The Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor is "to enhance AI model training and inference as well as collaborative intelligence techniques in order to revolutionize AI systems across critical sectors including healthcare, education, and social equity." The Petitioner also indicated that he "plans to pursue a position as an assistant professor at the .________________. or a similar employer" and proposed to "advance each ofmy three research areas" in the field ofAI: 1) optimizing both training efficiency and inference-time performance; 2) enhancing in-context learning and instruction following capabilities, and 3) developing more sophisticate collaborative intelligence frameworks.
A. EB-2 Classification as an Individual of Exceptional Ability
On appeal, the Petitioner notes that USCIS did not make an explicit determination regarding the Petitioner's eligibility for EB-2 classification. The Petitioner concludes that since USCIS did not request additional evidence regarding his eligibility for EB-2 classification, it is presumed that he 3 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). p. 3 meets the requirements. However, we note that the record, as currently constituted, does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner's eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. As such, we will remand this matter to SCOPS to make a determination on this issue.
The Petitioner claimed that he qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability4 by meeting three ofthe six criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii): 1) he has an official academic record showing that he has a bachelor's degree in computer science and technology from.____________, per 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A); 2) he has membership in professional associations per 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E); and 3) he has made significant contribution to his field with various co-authored journals cited by others in the field of computer science per 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). On remand, SCOPS should analyze the evidence in the record and provide sufficient explanation on whether the Petitioner has satisfied the claimed three criteria mentioned above and request additional evidence as required. Even if SCOPS determines that the Petitioner has satisfied three out of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3), meeting the minimum requirements by providing initial evidence does not, in itself: establish that the individual in fact meets the requirements for exceptional ability.Exceptional ability not established See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(B)(2). Therefore, SCOPS should conduct a final merits determination by reviewing the entire record, including the Petitioner's educational credentials, reference letters, professional membership, and journal citations, and decide whether the totality of the evidence shows a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
SCOPS should consider whether the Petitioner, a graduate student with relatively brief periods of research experience prior to filing the petition, has sufficient level of education and experience qualifying him as an individual of exceptional ability. SCOPS should also review the Petitioner's membership with the I 1 5 and Association for
Computing Machinery (ACM)6 to see whether these memberships demonstrate a degree of exceptional ability. SCOPS should further examine the Petitioner's co-authored journals and level of citations and determine whether such evidence sufficiently establishes exceptional ability beyond that which is ordinarily encountered in the occupation as an AI researcher. In addition, SCOPS should consider recommendation letters in the record to determine whether they support the Petitioner's claim that his work has made contributions to the field of AI and other industries. As noted above, SCOPS should determine whether the quality of the evidence indicates a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). B. National Interest Waiver
SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit but not national endeavor under the first prong of Dhanasar. SCOPS did not make any findings on whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 4 The Petitioner did not claim that he meets qualifications of an advanced degree professional. 5 The record indicates thatLJ is a departmental organization at~I-----------~ 6 The Petitioner provided his membership card showing that he has been a member ·'since 2024" but the record does not indicate whether this membership began before or after the filing of the petition in November 2024. p. 4 On appeal, the Petitioner contends that SCOPS mischaracterized his proposed endeavor.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification In the denial, SCOPS labelled the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as a "Tenure Track Assistant Professor" 7 and did not sufficiently address the nature of the endeavor.
We agree with the Petitioner that SCOPS erred in identifying the proposed endeavor as a tenure track assistant professor. The Petitioner identified three areas of research that he will pursue, such as improving and enhancing Al's efficiency, its learning capabilities, and collaborative intelligence frameworks, but SCOPS did not fully incorporate AI research as part of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In addition, SCOPS incorrectly stated the field of his endeavor as "business industry" and did not analyze the proposed endeavor in the context of the field of AI.
The erroneous references to the nature ofthe Petitioner's proposed endeavor and the lack ofdiscussion of the specific evidence in the record, make it unclear whether SCOPS fully analyzed the evidence submitted by the Petitioner and based the decision on that evidence. Therefore, we will withdraw the decision and remand the matter to SCOPS to review the entire record and determine whether the Petitioner has sufficiently established eligibility under the Dhanasar.
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal).
On remand, SCOPS should consider whether the Petitioner established his endeavor's national importance by describing his proposed endeavor with sufficient specificity and providing corroboration for his endeavor's claimed prospective impact. For example, the petitioner inDhanasar demonstrated that he conducted research and development in the field of air and space propulsion, more specifically, hypersonic propulsion systems involving speeds above Mach 5, and he had developed a novel method for accurately calculating hypersonic airflow. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 891-92. In addition, he submitted evidence reflecting that he would continue his research into designing and developing propulsion systems in nano-satellites, rocket-propelled ballistic missiles, and single-stage-to-orbit vehicles and substantial supporting evidence of how his continued research would assist the United States in maintaining its advantage over other nations in hypersonic flight, including documentation reflecting his receipt of funding from a government entity for his research. Id.
Similarly, SCOPS should review the record for specific nature of the Petitioner's endeavor, including details of any innovative methodology or discoveries that would result from his research that would broadly impact the field and decide whether the record corroborates the Petitioner's claims of broad impact. While USCIS recognizes specific evidentiary considerations relating to the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), "the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(2). Therefore, the importance of an industry or field is not sufficient to meet the 7 Part 6 (Basic Infonnation About the Proposed Employment), Item 1 of Form 1-140, Immigrant Petitioner for Alien Workers, indicates the Petitioner's job title as "Tenure-Track Assistant Professor." p. 5 national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework if the evidence submitted does not specifically discuss the Petitioner's research and its impact. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. SCOPS may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new decision.
Conclusion
This matter will be remanded to SCOPS to determine if the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability and has established his eligibility set forth in the Dhanasar's analytical framework.
ORDER: The decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis.