The Petitioner is a machine learning scientist who 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 (NIW) 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).
SCOPS denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (petition), concluding that the record established that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying visa classification, but he did not merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103 .3. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 26 I&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.
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.
National Interest W Aiyer
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner was eligible for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based upon his doctoral degree in biological and medical info1matics from a U.S. institution of higher education. Accordingly, the sole issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner merits an NIW of the EB-2 classification's job offer requirement as a matter of discretion. While we acknowledge some ofthe en-ors the Petitioner raises in his appeal, we ultimately agree with SCOPS' conclusion that he has not demonstrated eligibility for this NIW petition. A. National Interest Waiver
The Petitioner earned his Ph.D. in Biomedical Informatics in March of 2024 following his foreign bachelor's degree in biomedical sciences. After student-based experience stints as a visiting student and graduate student researcher, the Petitioner served as an intern with his cmTent employer for approximately one year where he developed and deployed deep learning artificial intelligence (AI) models for computational pathology. His cunent employer appears to be an early-stage venture in the medical robotics and diagnostic automation industry, as the letter from their president indicated he founded the company in 2021. Within an August 2024 letter from his cmTent employer, the president stated that upon this petition's approval, they will offer the Petitioner a foll-time permanent position as lead machine learning scientist and they are cunently employing him in that same job based on his F-1 status.
SCOPS described the Petitioner's claimed proposed endeavor in dubious terms concluding that he did not adequately describe what he will specifically do in the United States to qualify for an NIW. Within the initial filing, the Petitioner did not offer a personal statement explaining what would constitute his proposed endeavor, but his attorney offered a cover letter stating his "continued development of [his current employer's] research in machine learning and biotechnology is of national importance," and his work at his current employer "is of great national importance because many aspects of the technologies being implemented are shaped by the specific demands of U.S.-based customers." There was no mention of the Petitioner pursuing his proposed endeavor outside of working for his current employer. In fact, in the attorney's cover letter when discussing whether the Petitioner was well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, it provided: "Contingent upon approval of this petition, he will continue to develop integrated artificial intelligence techniques and designs to support surgery-assisting technologies for [his cunent employer] as the Lead Machine Leaming Scientist as described in the attached letter of support." The correspondence also repeatedly makes reference to the Petitioner seeking his endeavor with his current employer. And the primary evidence relating to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was a letter from his employer asserting his proposed employment with the company has both substantial merit and national importance. It is clear from the initial filing that the Petitioner presented his proposed endeavor through only working for his current employer. SCOPS then issued a request for evidence (RFE) informing the Petitioner that he did not state any particular proposed endeavor and that what he proposed to do in the United States was vague.Proposed endeavor too vague In p. 3 response, the Petitioner provided his own personal statement and he identified a short-term and a long-term goal for his proposed endeavor.
We find the Petitioner's personal statement and the manner in which he would pursue his long-term endeavor in the RFE response to be unclear. In that statement, the Petitioner indicated his endeavor would consist of a short-term goal of the work he will perform for his employer, and a long-term goal "to push the boundaries of AI in pathology and medicine by leveraging advanced computer vision, foundational models, large language models (LLMs), and AI agents." The Petitioner did not indicate whether he would pursue that long-term goal with his current employer or whether that is an aspiration he would seek outside ofhis employment. We consider this vague language to work against his efforts to demonstrate he is eligible for this immigrant classification. SCOPS primarily evaluated his claims as ifhe pursued his endeavor while working for an employer.
On appeal, the Petitioner appears to introduce additional vagaries without specifying precisely how he will go about pursuing each of his goals that comprise his proposed endeavor. On appeal, the brief provides:
The Service repeatedly mischaracterizes the petitioner's proposed endeavor, conflating his cunent employment with the broader scope of his work. The petitioner has not stated that his endeavor is simply to "continue [his] work at [his employer]" but rather that he aims to advance AI in pathology through the type of work he is cmTently conducting-work that is intended to impact the field at large. This distinction is critical, and the failure to acknowledge it has led to a lack of meaningful analysis of the petitioner's clearly articulated and detailed plan, which is thoroughly outlined in his personal statement and supported by corroborating evidence.
Collectively the unclear language in the record seemingly produces an inconsistency, as the Petitioner leaves it to the reader to fill in the gaps with their own ideas ofwhere and how he will go about seeking his proposed endeavor.Inconsistencies in the record That ambiguity is a clear change in the claims he presented in the initial filing. Recognizing the need for a clear and consistent intention ofwhat a petitioner's proposed endeavor will be, a filing party must establish eligibility for the benefit they are seeking at the time the petition is filed. See Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971 ). But he did not do so here. The Petitioner must resolve this discrepant information in the record. Such a resolution must be demonstrated through the submission of relevant, independent, and objective evidence that reveals which information is true. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Attempts to explain or reconcile the conflicting accounts by itself without competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. Id. This incongruity alone precludes this petition's approval. To provide the Petitioner with an analysis ofhis eligibility under Dhanasar 's prongs, we will set aside this fatal evidentiary flaw and proceed with the adjudication based on the claims as presented in the initial filing; pursuing his endeavor while working for his current employer.
1. Substantial Merit and National Importance (Collectively Dhanasar 's First Prong) The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Id. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas p. 4 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.
SCOPS concluded that his endeavor had substantial merit, but he did not demonstrate it was nationally important. On appeal, the Petitioner identifies his personal statement and letters from two professors as the primary evidence supporting his eligibility here. Within the appeal, the Petitioner argues his efforts go beyond his immediate employer and their clientele. The Petitioner has explained why the benefits of his proposed endeavor extend beyond his employer and its clients, and while some questions remain about the extent to which the proposed endeavor will impact the field, the record is adequate to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard here. We therefore withdraw SCOPS' adverse decision under prong one and conclude that by establishing the substantive merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor, he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
2. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to: (1) their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; (2) a model or plan for future activities; (3) any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and (4) the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals.Past record does not show influence or success Id. at 890.
The Petitioner initially offered broad claims of his past achievements, three first-authored papers, and his current work for his employer. In response to SCOPS' RFE, he claimed that he performs in a leading or critical role for his employer, and he "has influenced the field beyond the normal expectations of a professional with some experience in the field as his past work has garnered significant interest, evidenced by his Google Scholar citations." SCOPS concluded that he failed to meet the second prong's requirements. Responding to SCOPS' denial, the Petitioner claims he is actively pursuing and advancing his proposed endeavor through his current role with his employer, where he plays a foundational role in shaping the company's AI initiatives for medical diagnostics. He notes that his position with his employer provides the financial and institutional support necessary to drive his work forward. He also discusses his citation record and his professional activities concluding they support the claim that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor.
Again, we are evaluating the Petitioner's claims as he initially stated; working for his current employer. So the entirety of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor relies on his employer operating and conducting business in their field. We begin with our determination that his claims surrounding a model or plan for future activities are undermined by the uncertainty relating to his employer. The record lacks supporting material to demonstrate that the company is operational and creating revenue, or that it even exists. In fact, the employer's president indicated the company "is currently in stealth as we continue to secure approved patents" meaning they are not fully conducting business in the medical equipment manufacturing sector. The employer's president specified the company is in that clandestine status without any indication of when they intend to exit that stealth status and step out of the shadows. The Petitioner's inability to show that the company exists and is operating tends to p. 5 undermine his claims that he is well positioned to advance the endeavor that-based on his inconsistent statements-can only occur through his employer.
An additional factor weighing against the Petitioner's eligibility is his employer's president's claims that patent applications and contracts exist and that the company is conducting business, but the Petitioner did not submit evidence to corroborate those assertions; not even evidence that the company is compensating him for his work. Unsupported assertions have little evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish a filing party has satisfied their burden of proof; such asse1tions do not even make a prima facie eligibility showing.Claims not backed by documents See Matter o_f Mariscal-Hernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 666, 673 (BIA 2022); see also Matter of Azrag, 28 I&N Dec. 784, 787 (BIA 2024). It remains that the Petitioner's claims of making advancements in his field through his employer are contradicted by the company's apparent lack of operational status, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated that a non-functioning business can support the research, development, or professional activities necessary for meaningful progress in the field. users policy provides that a "petitioner should submit evidence to ... corroborate projections related to the proposed endeavor." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. With the shortcomings in the evidence relating to the Petitioner's employer operating in their industry, he has not offered probative evidence adhering to this policy requirement. Whether the endeavor is likely to succeed is not the issue here. Instead, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor exists due to the lack of adequate evidence. As the users Policy Manual states, unsubstantiated claims about whether the alien is well positioned does not meet the petitioner's burden of proof Id.
The Petitioner has demonstrated he possesses an education and skills to advance his endeavor. But "education, skills, and knowledge" is only a portion of one of the nonexclusive factors listed in Dhanasar for consideration under the second prong. Id. Upon review, we cannot conclude that the quality and quantity ofthe submitted evidence of the Petitioner's published work shows that he has a record of success in his efforts related to his proposed endeavor. And because the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is directly tied to his work with his current employer, the above adverse determination about a model or plan for future activities also weighs against another factor: any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. And while there is an inherent interest of potential customers or other relevant entities in his endeavor by his claimed employer, the Petitioner doesn't offer salient arguments about this issue in the appeal, and the lack of probative evidence that the employer exists and is operating in the industry also has an adverse effect on those claims.
We note additional issues detrimental to the Petitioner's eligibility. First, the Petitioner's appeal discusses and relies on his citation history to show he is well positioned to advance his endeavor. However, he did not offer any evidence from Google Scholar or any other probative material demonstrating his citation history when he filed the petition.Citation record not persuasive Instead, he offered evidence from Google Scholar several months later when responding to the RFE, which was not contemporaneous to his petition filing date. Because the Google Scholar evidence was submitted with his RFE response and does not demonstrate that evidence reflects his citation record as of the date he filed the petition, it is unclear what this evidence would have revealed on the date he filed the petition.
A request for an immigration benefit "must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and must continue to be through adjudication." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); Delaware Valley Reg'/ Ctr., LLC v. DHS, 106 F.4th 1195, 1204-06 (D.C. Cir. 2024); Ahmed v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 579, 582 (6th Cir. 2008). Any additional evidence submitted in connection with a benefit request at a later date, including evidence responding to a request from users, must also establish "eligibility at the time the benefit request was filed." 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(12); Robinson v. Napolitano, 554 F.3d 358, 364 (3d Cir. 2009). "Under this rule, USCrS will deny [ an immigration benefit] if the [ filing paiiy] becomes eligible only after the [benefit] was filed." Tingzi Wang v. USCIS, 375 F. Supp. 3d 22, 27 (D.D.C. 2019) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(12)); Doe v. USCIS, 410 F. Supp. 3d 86, 100 (D.D.C. 2019). The Petitioner cannot rely on the Google Scholar evidence he presented in the RFE response.
Second, although the attorney's correspondence and the Petitioner's personal statement refer to future U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval, lacking from the record is specific information as to what FDA approval will be required, whether the employer has filed any such application, or whether the FDA issued an approval or clearance. Other companies deploying devices and services similar to the Petitioner's employer have obtained a 51 0(k) clearance from the FDA. 2 While this open question is not determinative under this prong, the fact that the record lacks adequate material relating to this issue is an additional factor weighing against the Petitioner's claims.
Third, the users Policy Manual includes a non-exhaustive list of types of evidence that may demonstrate an alien is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, F.5(D)(3). While the Petitioner submitted a few items included on that list such as his Ph.D., his published scholarly works, and letters from two others in his field, absent are some of the more persuasive items such as patents, copies of contracts, agreements, or licenses relating to the proposed endeavor, published a1iicles or media repo1is about his work, documentation showing a strong citation history, material establishing his work has been influential in the field, or evidence demonstrating how and to what extent his work is being used by others in the field.
We acknowledge the Petitioner's advanced STEM education in a field directly related to his proposed endeavor. But after consideration of all the relevant factors under Dhanasar 's second prong, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
3. We Reserve Dhanasar 's Remaining Third Prong
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts he meets additional eligibility requirements under the Dhanasar analytical framework, but he has not satisfied Dhanasar 's necessary second prong. Because this shortcoming is dispositive of the appeal, we reserve our opinion regarding the remaining issues. Where a case warrants a denial regardless of other eligibility considerations, it is unnecessary that we address those other considerations. Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 332 (2022) ( citing INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (finding agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision)); see also Matter ofYajure Hurtado, 510(k) Premarket Notification, U.S. Food & Drug Administration (Nov. 10, 2025), https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfi:n?ID=K22l309.
29 I&N Dec. 216, 229 n.8 (BIA 2025) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden.
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.S(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.