The Petitioner, an information technology researcher, 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. § 1153(b )(2).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof 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 Christo '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.
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 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 1 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).
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
SCOPS found that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. Based on the evidence in the record that the Petitioner obtained a master of science degree in information technology, we agree. SCOPS also found that the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. SCOPS denied the petition, however, finding that the Petitioner did not establish that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor or that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification On appeal, the Petitioner claims SCOPS erred by relying on "generic" language rather than providing an individualized analysis and by conflating the first and second prongs. The Petitioner also disagrees with SCOPS' conclusions that his educational credentials and his experience do not set him apart from others in the field and that his past projects were proprietary and therefore not disseminated through the field. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner has not established that he is wellpositioned to advance the proposed endeavor and therefore has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver.
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to research the use of innovative machine learning and deep learning techniques to improve early diagnosis and treatment of cancer. The Petitioner states that he will focus on improving the availability and quality of healthcare, improving the accuracy and efficiency of early-stage skin cancer diagnosis by automatic image analysis, and developing AI systems that can analyze big datasets formed through the medical images taken using CT scans, MRI, or mammogram to improve early detection. The Petitioner also states that he intends to integrate these models with telemedicine platforms to "expand access to advanced diagnostic capabilities in resourceconstrained settings."
While the first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on the proposed endeavor and whether it has substantial merit and national importance, the second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual and whether they are well-positioned to advance it. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. To determine whether they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals.Past record does not show influence or success Id.
We first consider the Petitioner's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar efforts. The record shows that the Petitioner has obtained a master of science degree in information technology and possesses a foreign bachelor of science degree in electrical and electronics engineering. The Petitioner also contends that his record of success is reflected by his publication record and his citation history, claiming on appeal that the "significant" citation count of his publications "reflects their influence on the field, indicating that I have already made meaningful contributions to oncology research and am well positioned to continue doing so." Additionally, the Petitioner submitted evidence that he previously worked as an electrical systems and IT maintenance p. 3 engineer at an electronics equipment company in Bangladesh and that he is currently employed as an information technology specialist (cloud engineer) for a consulting company.
We conclude that the evidence related to the Petitioner's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success does not weigh in favor of being well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. We acknowledge that the Petitioner has a master's degree in a technology field and that he is a named author of publications which have received citations. However, contrary to the Petitioner's assertion that his citation record "concretely shows that his research findings have influenced others in his field" and have "generated positive discourse in the community," we note that most of the Petitioner's publication history does not appear to relate to the proposed endeavor.Citation record not persuasive For example, the Petitioner submitted evidence that he has co-authored articles related to the societal impact of cyberbullying, I Idata analysis, stock price prediction, and detecting agricultural diseases in varied climates. We farther note that although the Petitioner's two most heavily cited works do relate to cancer detection, the Petitioner is the last listed author in both of these articles. Moreover, the Petitioner submitted only the first page of these articles, and we are unable to ascertain the Petitioner's specific contribution to these articles. Based on the information in the record, it is not clear what the Petitioner's role was in researching these varied topics and the Petitioner has not established that this publication record as a whole demonstrates a record of success "in related or similar efforts" to the proposed endeavor of early cancer detection.
Additionally, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that he has the skills, knowledge, or a record of success that would position him well to advance the proposed endeavor. For example, the Petitioner's work experience involves IT consulting, providing cloud computing services, IT infrastructure maintenance, and protecting data and networks from cybersecurity threats. The Petitioner's resume states that his background is in "cybersecurity, cloud engineering, and IT infrastructure upkeep" and that he has published research in the areas of "agricultural analysis, cybersecurity, and medical imaging." The Petitioner has not established how, based on this background, he has the knowledge or skills necessary to publish and present research related to the early detection of cancer.
We also conclude that neither the Petitioner's model or plan for future activities nor his progress toward achieving the proposed endeavor supports a finding that he is well-positioned to advance it. In response to the request for evidence the Petitioner asserted this personal statement provided his model or plan for future activities and that his employment letter confirms that he is "currently carrying out the proposed endeavor already" and that his employment activities "enable him to carry out the research encompassed by the proposed endeavor." But the Petitioner's employment letter states that his work involves assisting and establishing robust governance, compliance, and risk management programs; developing tools and scripts; and leading analysis, design, and planning projects. The Petitioner describes a research-based proposed endeavor, and the record does not establish how this employment supports the Petitioner's ability to conduct, publish, and present research. The record also does not establish how this work relates to using artificial intelligence tools to improve cancer detection. We also conclude that the Petitioner's personal statement does not sufficiently provide a model or plan for future activities. Although the statement describes potential research topics that interest the Petitioner, it does not provide a model or plan for conducting and fonding this proposed research.
The final factor enumerated in Matter of Dhanasar relates to evidence of interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Here, we similarly conclude that the evidence in the record does not weigh in favor of demonstrating that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the endeavor. Again, the Petitioner emphasizes his citation record as evidence of interest from relevant entities or individuals in his work. However, the deficiencies discussed above related to the Petitioner's citation record are relevant here as well. Although we acknowledge that the Petitioner has co-authored articles that have been cited by others, most of the Petitioner's publications do not appear to relate to the proposed endeavor, and the record does not contain sufficient information to ascertain the Petitioner's role in the articles that do appear to be related. As such, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's citation record demonstrates interest in the Petitioner pursuing the proposed endeavor.No interest from users, customers or investors
Additionally, the Petitioner claims that interest in his work is evidenced by a letter froml I l Ltd. regarding fonding for a study in which the Petitioner partic .... ip_a_t-ed ___ T_h__,e Petitioner claims that this grant was awarded because of the Petitioner's "scholarly achievements and excellence as a researcher." The text of the letter does not support this claim. The letter awarding the grant for this study does not discuss the Petitioner at all and is addressed to "whom it may concern." The record does not contain evidence regarding how this grant was obtained, whether the Petitioner was involved in applying for the grant, or who was the principal investigator in the study. As stated above, the Petitioner is the last-listed author of the relevant publication and the Petitioner provided only the first page of the article. The Petitioner did not provide other evidence of having applied for or received fonding for his research. By contrast, in Matter ofDhanasar, we noted that the petitioner had received "consistent" government fonding ofresearch projects in which he played a "significant" role, specifically that he initiated or was the primary award contact on several fonded grant proposals and was the only listed researcher on many ofthe grants. Id. at 893, Fn. 11. The evidence in the record regarding fonding for a study in which the Petitioner participated does not appear to be similar to the fonding received by the petitioner in Dhanasar. While the record shows that the Petitioner has participated in research that has received fonding, the record does not sufficiently establish that there is interest in or support for the Petitioner pursuing his proposed endeavor such that we would consider him to be well-positioned to advance it.
Not every individual who has participated in published research will be found to be well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Rather, we must examine the factors set forth in Matter ofDhanasar to determine whether, for instance, the individual's education, skills, and record of success, their model or plan for future activities, their progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and the generation ofinterest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890. In considering the record in totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is well-positioned to advance the endeavor. Because the documentation in the record does not establish that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor as required by the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve our opinion regarding his eligibility under the first and third Dhanasar 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).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established he 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 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.