The Petitioner is a quantitative analyst 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. § 1l 53(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) of the 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
A. Inconsistencies in the Claimed Proposed Endeavor
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that SCOPS' "denial conflates the Petitioner's employment title Quantitative Analyst with the proposed endeavor" and that "[t]his framing fundamentally distorts the nature of the Petitioner's work and ignores the consistent articulation of the endeavor throughout the record." The Petitioner's appeal brief states the following was clearly conveyed in the request for evidence response:No interest from users, customers or investors
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is NOT to work as a Quantitative Analyst in an investment management firm. Rather, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to develop AI-enabled platforms to enhance real-time investment decisions, improve risk modeling, and facilitate industry-wide improvements in financial product design and systemic stability.
But that is not what he conveyed in the initial filing when the correspondence stated:
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is an extension of the groundbreaking work he has already been performing for over 5 years throuph his employment with major investin& banking foms in the United States, includingl Iandl.__________,J He is now carrying out the proposed endeavor in the context ofhis employment[], and his plan for the foreseeable future is to maintain that same employment. While the Petitioner's day-to-day tasks may vary as client and project needs adjust.
(Emphasis added.) The result is an inconsistent and changing basis for the activity that the Petitioner intends to comprise his eligibility for the job offer waiver portion of this petition. The Dhanasar framework cannot be applied to two dueling proposed endeavors; a petitioner must identify the specific endeavor they propose to undertake. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. So it is not possible to determine the national importance ofan endeavor when a Petitioner cannot consistently articulate the nature ofthe endeavor. Recognizing the need for a clear and consistent intention ofwhat a petitioner's proposed endeavor will be, a petitioner 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 ). The Petitioner must resolve this discrepant information in the record. Such a resolution must be demonstrated through the submission ofrelevant, 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. B. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit p. 3 may be demonstrated in a range of areas 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. When we evaluate national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the alien will work. Rather, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the alien proposes to undertake" and we look to evidence illustrating the "potential prospective impact" of his actual proposed work. Id. A petitioner must demonstrate the proposed endeavor will "impact the field ... more broadly" (Id. at 893) and that it has "broader implications" (Id. at 889). Such endeavors may have "national or even global implications within a particular field" (Id. at 889), "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or [have] other substantial positive economic effects" (Id. at 890), or has the potential to widely advance and broadly affect U.S. strategic interests (Id. at 892).
USCIS policy also provides that "if the evidence of record demonstrates that the person's proposed endeavor has the significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, or to contribute to the advancement of a valuable technology or field of study, it may rise to the level of national importance." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (citing Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90, 892). Even if the above noted inconsistency was not present, the petition would remain denied. After reviewing the record, we adopt and affirm SCOPS' ultimate conclusion under Dhanasar sfirst prong for NIW eligibility, with the added comments below. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue").
We further note that within the Petitioner's appeal, he continues to focus on the imp01iance of the industry and occupation in general, rather than the importance ofhis own specific proposed endeavor.Proposed endeavor too vague When determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance ofthe overall field, industry, or profession in which the alien will work; instead, USCIS must focus on the "the specific endeavor that the alien proposes to undertake." See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. And finally, we do not agree with the Petitioner's statement in the appeal brief that SCOPS' denial did not meaningfully engage with the evidence in the record, as the decision addressed numerous letters he alleges they ignored, as well as government reports. The Petitioner does not identify any particular evidence that was ignored while also explaining how a lack ofanalysis or consideration ofthat material would have swung the pendulum in his favor under prong one's national importance requirements. Because the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by Dhanasar's first prong, he has not demonstrated eligibility for an NIW of the job offer requirement.
C. We Reserve Dhanasar's Remaining Second and Third Prongs
As we explained above, Dhanasar 's second and third prongs require the Petitioner to demonstrate he is eligible for an NIW meeting additional requirements. But because the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor satisfies the Dhanasar framework's first prong, he is not eligible for an NIW and further discussion of the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. Consequently, we will not address and we reserve the Petitioner's remaining appellate arguments. 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, 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. § 103.5(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.