The Petitioner, an applied and computational mathematician, 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. § l 153(b)(2).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3. The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter oJChawathe, 25 l&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. An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that ofa bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id.
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 l&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 Waiver
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. We agree with this determination. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework.
The first Dhanasar 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with SCOPS' conclusion that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit as it falls within the range of areas of substantial merit, namely science and technology. Id. However, while the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not establish its national importance. The Petitioner indicates that he is an expert in the field of applied and computational mathematics. He states his proposed endeavor is to continue research "on developing theoretically guaranteed and wellformed algorithms for advancing computational strategies that are applicable in large scale systems such as physical simulations and bioinformatic problems." The Petitioner asserts his proposed endeavor has national importance because it addresses complex challenges and places the United States at the forefront of technological advancements. The Petitioner emphasizes climate models that would improve through his research stating they would "serve as a crucial tool for understanding climate change" and provide valuable insights and improve detail and accuracy. The Petitioner states that his algorithms would also contribute to economic growth, sustainability, and United States technological leadership. In addition, the Petitioner provides a letter of recommendation from an assistant professor of oncology at the~--------------------~stating that the Petitioner's implementation of machine learning in cancer research "exhibits unprecedented results for gene analysis in medical diagnosis." The Petitioner also submits another letter of recommendation from a senior scientist from the
I !indicating that his work in computational ma._t_h-em-a-t1-·c_s_"_is_o_f_g-re_a_t_b_e_n_e_fi_t-to-th_e_e_n_e_r_g_y_f-1e_l_d__.," especially his work on "multi-fidelity uncertainty quantification [MFUQ]."
SCOPS later issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor would have national importance. As such, SCOPS requested that the Petitioner submit additional evidence including a more detailed description of her proposed endeavor and why it had national importance, and how it would have national implications within his field, the significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have substantial positive economic effects, broadly enhance societal welfare, and/or impact a matter that a government entity described as having national importance.
In response, the Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor has clear implications for improving societal welfare by contributing to the advancement of valuable science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) technology in a field of study identified by the U.S. National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) as vital to maintain U.S. technological leadership. The Petitioner again pointed to the letters of recommendation provided in support of the petition highlighting the national importance of his proposed endeavor in "diagnostic improvement and enhanced therapeutic effectiveness for different kinds of cancers" as well as his work in "multi-fidelity uncertainty quantification" being of great benefit to the energy field. The Petitioner provided a new personal statement setting forth his proposed endeavor and its asserted national importance and he emphasized that his research "supports national priorities in AI [ artificial intelligence] and computational science" as specified by the National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan. He indicated his proposed endeavor would contribute to the U.S.' s competitiveness in AI-driven fields, including "bioinformatics and high-performance computing, ensuring that national research and industry remain at the forefront of technologic innovation."
The Petitioner also submitted additional support letters, including one from an associate professor of applied mathematics from thel Ipointing to the Petitioner's work on MFUQ, which seeks to evaluate uncertainty in complex systems more efficiently. The associate professor stated that MFUQ was especially important in the aerospace industry by ensuring safety in fighter jets, drones, and missiles, while also noting that the Petitioner's "work on subsampling methods and optimization techniques is particularly useful for large-scale simulations in industries like aerospace, energy, and healthcare." In addition, the Petitioner rovided a su ort letter from another professor from th
I I This pro~fe-s-so_r_p_o_i_n-te_d_t_o_t_h_e_P_e-ti-t1-. o-n-e-r'_s_w_o_r_k_i_n_M_F_U_Q_a_n_d-it_s_v_a_lu-e-to_t_h_e_U __ S-_-A_i_r_F_o-rc-e~ Office of Scientific Research (AFSOR).
In concluding that the Petitioner's did not demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor, SCOPS determined he did not submit sufficient detail and documentation to establish that his proposed endeavor would have substantial economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area.Job creation or economic claims unsupported On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor involves advanced computing, AI, and biotechnologies all of which are recognized by the government as critical and emerging technologies. The Petitioner emphasizes that his work is financially supported by NIH, AFSOR, and the National Canine Cancer Foundation. He points to the previously provided letters of recommendation and his personal statement as evidence of the national importance of his work. The Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor is "distinct from his planned research position to advance that endeavor." The Petitioner reasons that SCOPS erred by focusing only on the potential economic effects of his proposed endeavor rather than its potential prospective national impact on climate science, biomedical research, energy, among other societal issues.
In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting 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. p. 4 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 provided a wide array of potential prospective national impacts in differing, large industries and societal issues. However, the Petitioner provided insufficient detail and documentation to substantiate that his proposed endeavor would have this wide-ranging impact on U.S. society.Proposed endeavor too vague For instance, in support of the petition, the Petitioner and those who drafted letters of recommendation indicated that his proposed endeavor would have a national level impact on climate change models, cancer research, and the energy field. In contrast, later in response to the RFE, the Petitioner emphasized the potential prospective national impact of his proposed endeavor on other large industries and national issues, including the aerospace industry and safety in fighter jets, drones, and missiles. In each case, the Petitioner provided only one support letter from a colleague to support a national level prospective impact on each major industry and issue. For example, the Petitioner states on appeal that the U.S. bioinformatics market in which he proposes to operate "is anticipated to surge from $6.447 billion in 2022 to $18.71 by 2030." It is reasonable to presume that the industries and scale of the national issues of climate change, cancer research, energy, and aerospace would be even larger, yet the Petitioner has submitted little supporting evidence that his proposed endeavor would have an asserted potential prospective national level impact on all of these aspects of U.S. society. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value. See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications).
The Petitioner assertions also leave question as to the actual nature of his proposed endeavor and its likelihood of having a potential prospective national impact. The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the "specific endeavor." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. When analyzing the national importance of a petitioner's proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's framework, we again focus on the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor, instead of limiting our analysis to a petitioner's employment at the time of filing. An endeavor is more specific than a general occupation and should include details of the types of work a petitioner intends to undertake and describe specific projects and goals. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual.
As a comparison, the petitioner in Dhanasar 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.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that that his proposed endeavor is "distinct from his planned research position to advance that endeavor." The Petitioner also states that his plan is to "pursue a position as a machine learning scientist a~ !research" following the completion of his doctorate degree. He further maintains that his personal statement clearly explains how his intended research would extend p. 5 beyond his employer, having national importance based on it contributing potential prospective national importance in various fields. Notrly, tr record includes no evidence to substantiate that the Petitioner has been offered a position at or another similar position. Further, the Petitioner elsewhere on the record emphasizes his prior research and publications while completing his master's degree in mathematics at the~-----------~including his work on MFUQ. As such, based on the Petitioner's statements on appeal, it is not clear whether the Petitioner will continue his prior university research or work in a private sector position, or both; and which would be the actual focus of his proposed endeavor.
The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner, while employed with0or a similar company, would be granted permission to publish his research or present it at conferences. As the Petitioner would be working with a private company, it is not apparent how internal research discoveries would be made publicly available rather than maintained as proprietary information. Notably, the Petitioner has not offered detailed information explaining how he will prospectively pursue his research projects, beyond completing his proposed doctorate. The record does not establish the prospective capacity, if any, in which the Petitioner will be predominantly engaged in conducting research on an ongoing basis, or how his proposed endeavor will have broader implications rising to the level of national importance. Thus, the substantive nature of the Petitioner's planned employment is directly relevant to considering his eligibility under Dhanasar 's first prong. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.Inconsistencies in the record Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988).
Here, the Petitioner further conflates his endeavor with that addressed in Dhanasar. However, in that matter, the petitioner conducted research and development in the field of air and space propulsion, more specifically, hypersonic propulsion systems involving speeds above Mach 5. The evidence submitted sufficiently demonstrated that he had developed a novel method for accurately calculating hypersonic airflow and that he would continue his research and would assist the United States in maintaining its advantage over other nations in hypersonic flight. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 891-92. In contrast, as we have discussed, it is not clear whether the Petitioner will continue his research at thd land/or pursue a position as a machine learning scientist atl I Further, in Dhanasar, the potential prospective national impact and related industry was very clearly defined, air and space propulsion. However, in this matter, the Petitioner in this matter provides a wide array ofpotential national impacts ranging from climate change models, cancer research, energy, aerospace, and even banking. The Petitioner also submitted evidence of the publication of his work while pursuing his master's degree. However, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how his research is novel in his field, an industry he states is "surging." For instance, the publications of the Petitioner's work were completed in tandem with several co-authors, raising uncertainty as to how his research can be distinguished from his similarly placed colleagues and others operating in this growing industry. In fact, without clear evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that there are likely many other individuals working on this technology who have earned a Ph.D.
The Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor aligns with national government initiatives and users policy guidance. He maintains that his endeavor involves research to advance STEM technologies, in particular artificial intelligence technologies which are recognized by the U.S. NS Te as being critical and emerging. While users recognizes specific evidentiary considerations relating to STEM degrees and fields, "the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both p. 6 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 artificial intelligence and the other technology researched by the Petitioner, attracting qualified professionals in these 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 particular proposed. See id. The Petitioner has not sufficiently detailed his proposed research or provided supporting evidence to allow us to understand how it would advance STEM technologies with sufficiently broad potential implications for his field rising to the level of national importance. Moreover, the Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently direct connection between his proposed research and the asserted national level impacts on various aspects of large national industries and societal issues.
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that he has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under Dhanasar's second and third prongs. 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).
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.