The Petitioner, a software engineer and a graduate student researcher in information technology (IT), seeks second preference immigrant classification (EB-2) as an advanced degree professional, as well as a national interest waiver ofthe 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 that the record did not establish that the Petitioner qualified for a national interest waiver in the exercise of discretion. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3 . On appeal, the Petitioner asserts eligibility and contends that SCOPS ignored the evidence in the record.
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 their proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
The Petitioner earned a master of science degree in mechanical engineering from .... l __________. in the United States. Based on this, SCOPS determined that the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional and therefore qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. Thus, the remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver. We agree with SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance under the first prong of Dhanasar's analytical framework. 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 ofareas 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. Id. In addition, the term "endeavor" is more specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that occupation. For example, while engineering is an occupation, the explanation of the proposed endeavor should describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of engineering in which the person will work, rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of an engineer. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual.
The record indicates that the Petitioner worked for IT consulting companies since comr1eting her master's degree. She is currently pursuing her Ph.D. program in information technology at_ I I Iand working as a software engineer at I IThe Petitioner initially described her proposed endeavor as performing research on "utilizing emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and cloud computing, in order to enhance data security across various domains, address critical challenges in the information technology industry, improve the reliability and efficiency of decision-marking systems, and contribute to the advancement of technology, including her ongoing research atl I
However, the Petitioner's proposed activities as explained in the initial petition appear general and vague without a specific focus or plans. The Petitioner claimed that her research is "crucial for strengthening data security across critical sectors and contributing to economic growth in the United States" and submitted various articles on the importance of data security to support her claims. In response to SCOPS' request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner reiterated that she is "a skilled expert" who intends to continue her research "in enhancing data security by integrating emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and cloud computing" without identifying the specific nature of her endeavor or the details of any innovative methodology or discoveries that would result from her research.
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that SCOPS ignored the evidence and misinterpreted the Dhanasar' s framework by "treating economic effects as a strict requirement in order to justify the erroneous Decision." We agree that SCOPS' analysis of the endeavor's national importance focused on the endeavor's significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects and that these are not the only factors that may establish the national importance of a proposed endeavor. As we noted in Dhanasar, "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 ." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
However, the Petitioner describes her research's impact in broad terms and generalized claims and has not provided the level of specific details or documentation contemplated in Dhanasar. The Petitioner has offered various industry articles, studies, and reports giving a general overview and importance of artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and cybersecurity. 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). We acknowledge the overall value of the advancement of cybersecurity and information technology and attracting qualified professionals in related careers, and strengthening our nation's technology, particularly technology recognized as critical and emerging, but their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular. See id.
As a comparison, the petitioner in Dhanasar demonstrated that he conducted research and development in the field ofair 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. Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 891-92. In addition, he submitted evidence reflecting that he would continue his research into designing and developing propulsion systems in nanosatellites, 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. Additionally, inDhanasar, we gave significant weight to "probative expert letters from individuals holding senior positions in academia, government, and industry that describe the importance of hypersonic propulsion research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests" and "detailed expert letters describing U.S. Government interest" in Dr. Dbanasar's specific research. Id. at 892.
Here, the Petitioner bas not provided similar evidence, such as the type of expert opinion evidence or letters from government entities detailing how her research impacts a matter that is a subject ofnational initiatives. The Petitioner submitted two reference letters,2 one from a professor of engineering in India and a director of quality engineering at I !claiming that the impact of the Petitioner' s involvement in IT has "massive implications for the United States." However, these authors do not provide details on the Petitioner's specific endeavor and its impact to confirm that her research lends itself to improved processes or advances in the field of data security. As the letters only discuss the 2 The Petitioner did not provide any letter from her doctorate program's professors or her current employer regarding the future research that she will undertake. p. 4 endeavor's impact in generalized terms, we cannot properly evaluate the endeavor's potential for broad impact in the field of data security and IT.
The Petitioner also provided excerpts from her published articles and Google scholar citation records, but this type of evidence relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. However, to the extent that it applies to national importance, we note that the Petitioner's co-authored journal articles do not display unique methodology or innovation relating to her proposed endeavor that would broadly contribute to protecting national data security and safeguarding the nation's vital infrastructure as she claimed. Other researchers cite to the Petitioner's journal articles as background material for their own findings, but these citations do not demonstrate broad impact in the field as the articles do not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from the other cited papers.No broader implications shown The topics of the Petitioner's journal articles are varied in subject matters, and they do not show the impact or influence that the Petitioner's work will have on the specific field of data security.
The record reflects the Petitioner's intention to provide beneficial research, but she has not offered sufficient information or evidence to establish that the prospective impact of her research endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Instead, the Petitioner mainly relies on her own statements, without corroborating evidence, to characterize her research work as valuable for advancing the field of data security and IT. However, the record lacks support for the Petitioner's actual findings and innovations other than general statements claiming results of various benefits in the specified fields of endeavor.Proposed endeavor too vague The Petitioner has not sufficiently supported her claim with evidence that her specific research plans or broad impact such as introducing technologies or advancements that may be disseminated to or adopted by others operating in the field or industry.Plan or projections not corroborated A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. As the Petitioner has not done so here, she has not sufficiently established that her proposed endeavor in the United States will have national importance under the first Dhanasar prong and she is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Therefore, further discussion of the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. 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 fust prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
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 ofa Form I-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.