The Petitioner, an applied 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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish that the Petitioner is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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 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). p. 2 I
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 visa classification as an individual holding an advanced degree based on his doctorate degree in mathematics from I !Institute, and we agree. ~--~
SCOPS further determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, but the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor is of national importance, and, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus a labor certification. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
The Petitioner proposed to work in the United States as an algorithm scientist. Specifically, the Petitioner stated that he intends to "develop optimized algorithms in order to improve the utility of medical devices that operate on such algorithms." In response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor is to "design and implement a state-of-the-art algorithms for solving huge-scale, mathematically complex, and possibly unsolved open problems in optimization and applied math, with significantly improved practical performance and theoretical guarantees in a wide range of real-world applications in engineering and data science, as well as [his] current work in cardiology which analyzes and cures cardiac arrhythmia and saves lives." Regarding his plans for long-term employment in the United States, the Petitioner stated that he plans to "design and implement state-of-the-art algorithms for solving open problems in optimization and applied math, create algorithms with significantly improved theoretical complexity and numerical performance on huge-scale, complex, and possibly unsolved problems, publish peer-reviewed publications and patents, present [his] work at conferences, and launch real-world products that significantly benefit a large number of U.S. people."
The Petitioner obtained a doctor's degree in mathematics from ~--------~Institute in 2022 and worked at I IInc. as an algorithm scientist from June 2023 to about November 2024. His present employment atl ILLC as a software engineer began in or about November 2024.
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that SCOPS failed to evaluate all the relevant evidence and this error constitutes an abuse of its discretion. The Petitioner claims that the decision mischaracterized, diminished, or ignored much of the evidence on record, thereby deviating from the proper "preponderance of the evidence standard."
Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner must prove eligibility for the requested immigration benefit by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. p. 3 at 375. Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the evidence must demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is "probably true," where the determination of "truth" is made based on the factual circumstances of each case. Id. at 376. Thus, the director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. Id. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim the petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013); see also Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. US. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 ( 4th Cir. 1993). Here, although SCOPS did not address each piece of evidence individually, the record reflects SCOPS' consideration of all evidence in the totality and supports SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit 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. An undertaking may have national importance, for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. Id. An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. 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 contends that SCOPS has ignored his updated personal statement, which references objective sources to explain how his proposed endeavor strengthens the nation. The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor has national importance because the proposed endeavor has broad implications for the United States, stating that his research "solves real-world applied mathematics problems by improving the utility of medical devices that operate on the algorithms that he develops and optimizes." He references data on the U.S. medical devices market size and on the cost ofchronic obstructive pulmonary disease for health systems and claims that his expertise in his field is of great importance to upholding the American economy by promoting market development and reducing healthcare expenses. The record also includes articles about atrial fibrillation, health care costs in the United States, and health information technology, heart disease facts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and 2025 heart disease statistics update fact sheet from the American Heart Association.
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work. Instead, we focus on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The articles and reports provide general information about heart diseases, health care costs in the United States, and the costs and benefits of health information technology. The data referenced by the Petitioner may support the importance of medical devices market and reducing healthcare costs for the U.S. economy. However, the articles, reports, and data do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor to "develop optimized algorithms in order to improve the utility of medical devices that operate on such p. 4 algorithms" or do not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient information or evidence to establish that his proposed endeavor offers benefits that extend beyond his employer or clients and their medical devices' users to impact the field of healthcare, the U.S. medical devices market, or the U.S. economy more broadly.No broader implications shown See id. at 889.
The Petitioner also claims that his ongoing work is critical to the goal of achieving and preserving the nation's technological leadership. The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor has applications in the advancement of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and advanced computing, all of which are formally recognized as critical emerging technologies. To support this claim, he submitted the National Science and Technology Council's updated list of critical and emerging technologies. In addition, the Petitioner suggests that he may demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor simply by providing evidence that he is working in an area of sufficient interest to the United States. He argues that SCOPS has overlooked the evidence of his doctorate degree and specialization in a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) field.
While we recognize the importance of progress in STEM fields and the essential role of persons with an advanced STEM degree in fostering this progress, merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance ofthe proposed endeavor. For example, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence specifically mentioning his work or discussing the government's interest in promoting the use of the Petitioner's work or his development of optimized algorithms, such that it has "national or even global implications within a particular field." See id. The record lacks sufficient evidence showing that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will help the United States to remain ahead ofstrategic competitors or current and potential adversaries where appropriate activity may contribute to the United States achieving or maintaining technology leadership or peer status among its allies and partners. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual.
Additionally, the Petitioner argues that SCOPS has dismissed expert endorsements and the experts' statements were corroborated by his record of success in applied mathematics, as seen in his cited publications in some of the field's reputable venues, as well as the specific examples of how others in the scientific community are applying his findings to their own research. The record includes recommendation letters from four experts in the field. ~ l an associate professor of mathematical sciences and the Petitioner's doctoral adviso~ IInstitute, praises the Petitioner's mathematical background, problem-solving skills, and foundation in programming languages, machine learning, and optimization methods. ProfessorOdiscusses two areas of the Petitioner's research and asserts that the Petitioner's research provides "significant advancement in advanced computing capability." I Ia research scientist atl I I ~' highly speaks of the Petitioner's expertise in performing complex procedures in applied mathematics, his ability to design novel improved algorrhms,I and his analytical skills to theoretically prove the optimality of his designed algorithms. Doctor asserts that based on the Petitioner's superior research and his influence in the field, the Petitioner has received "international recognition and acclaim for his original research."
._______.I another research scientist atD discusses the Petitioner's past achievements in the field of applied mathematics, including his publications, research work as "a top expert in nonconvex p. 5 optimization," peer reviews, presentations of his research work at conferences in optimization and machine learning, and service as a program committee for an international workshop. I Ia professor of business analytics at the I I provides the Petitioner's record of achievements in the field of applied mathematics, including his research into optimizati~n alFcorithms to solve nonconvex programs and publication in applied mathematics journals. Professo explains that he cited the Petitioner's work in his own studies on optimization for nonconvex and weakly convex program solving methods and emphasizes that the Petitioner's work provides "vital advancements in the area, specifically related to nonconvex problems."
As a matter of discretion, we may use advisory opinions statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron International, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). Nevertheless, we are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought, and the submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. See id. Here, the expert recommendation letters illustrate the Petitioner's mathematical background, his knowledge in programming languages, machine learning, and optimization methods, his ability to design novel improved algorithms, his analytical skills to theoretically prove the optimality of his designed algorithms, and his past achievements in the field of applied mathematics. The letters also describe the Petitioner's research work and discuss the importance of his research work in the field. However, the letters do not provide sufficient information or evidence about the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and its impact rising to the level ofnational importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Furthermore, the Petitioner's education, knowledge, skills, and professional experience in the field are relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890.
In his letter, DoctorD states that atl ~ the Petitioner's current research and development of next-generation recommendation algorithms, which improve the I lvideo recommendation to intelligently understand users' needs and suggest videos with high quality and relevance, are "critical to the success ofl ~usiness" and are also "of great interest to the research community in both academia and the industry." While we acknowledr that the Petitioner's role as a software engineer atl Iis important in improving the I video recommendation algorithms, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the economic benefits and technological advancements resulting from the company's operations would be directly attributable to the Petitioner's particular role as a software engineer or his research and development of the I lvideo recommendation algorithms at the company.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
The issue here is the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. See id. at 889. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed employment in the United States as an algorithm scientist and his proposed endeavor to "develop optimized algorithms in order to improve the utility of medical devices that operate on such algorithms" would impact the field of applied mathematics, the field ofhealthcare, or the U.S. medical devices market more broadly rather than benefiting his employers or clients and their medical devices' users. See id. Because the record lacks sufficient evidence ofthe proposed endeavor's broader impact, we agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner proposed endeavor does not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.Proposed endeavor too vague
DoctoQadvises in his letter that it is in the interest of the United States to retain professionals with exceptional expertise and superior talent, such as the Petitioner, because there has been a pervasive and chronic shortage ofjobs requiring advanced degrees in STEM. Doctor0adds that technology and innovation are key drivers to economic growth and jobs. We are not persuaded by the argument that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance due to a shortage ofworkers in STEM fields because the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage.Relied on a labor shortage Moreover, while we acknowledge the growing demand for skilled professionals in STEM fields, shortages ofqualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department ofLabor through the labor certification process. See 20 C.F.R. § 656, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A), 1182(p)(l). Therefore, a shortage of qualified professionals is not sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver.
The Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to design and implement algorithms for solving problems in optimization and applied mathematics, publish peer-reviewed articles and patents, present his research work at conferences, and launch products that benefits the U.S. population. However, he has not offered sufficient information or evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. See id. at 893. In this case, although we did not address each piece of evidence individually, we carefully reviewed and duly considered each piece of evidence, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence. But the record does not contain sufficient information or evidence to establish that his proposed activities to design and implement algorithms for solving problems in optimization and applied mathematics, publish articles and patents, present his research work at conferences, and launch products will have an impact on the field of applied mathematics or a particular field or industry at a level commensurate with national importance. See id. at 889.
Because the record does not sufficiently show the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Therefore, further analysis ofhis eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose, and we will reserve these issues for future consideration should the need arise. 2
Conclusion
Although the Petitioner has shown that he is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit, he has not established by a preponderance ofthe evidence that his proposed endeavor is of national importance. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner is ineligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 2 See INS v. Bagamasbad. 429 U.S. 24. 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516. 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). p. 7 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 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.