The Petitioner, a research scientist at....___________, 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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the record did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be 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 ofproof 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 ofChristo'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) of the 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 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
The Petitioner proposes to "develop state-of the-art optimization algorithms for efficient training of artificial intelligence models in order to expedite the development oflarge language models, computer vision, and other ratification intelligence applications." The Petitioner indicates that he intends to integrate his findings into I IAI infrastructure and contribute to the AI community through publications at conferences.
SCOPS determined the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established a waiver ofthe requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. SCOPS determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit but that its national importance was not established under the first Dhanasar prong. In addition, SCOPS concluded the Petitioner did not demonstrate he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under the second Dhanasar prong and that, on balance, the Petitioner did not meet the third Dhanasar prong's requirements to show it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
A. 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 may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. As stated, SCOPS determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. We concur.
SCOPS concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as he did not demonstrate the Petitioner's "proposed endeavor and individual contributions offer original innovations of such significance that they will advance the industry and field beyond that of [his] employer." SCOPS also found it has not otherwise been established that the Petitioner's endeavor "stands to sufficiently extend beyond the benefit on an employer to impact the nation more broadly at a level to commensurate with national importance."
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts his work satisfies the national importance prong as it "addresses pressing national challenges, aligns with federal policy priorities, and offers broad benefits across both public and private sectors of the U.S. workforce." In asserting that the evidence of record links the Petitioner's research contributions to objectives of national significance, "including federal energy priorities, AI infrastructure efficiency, and economic competitiveness," the Petitioner references his personal statement, his underlying petition and response to SCOPS' request for evidence, and letters of reference. The Petitioner also contends that a letter submitted by a fellow ~ employee demonstrates how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor impacts the field beyond his employer by p. 3 "influencing the broader AI and opt1m1zation communities through scholarly dissemination, partnerships, and conference engagement."
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90.
The record reflects that the Petitioner is currently employed as a research scientist at ~ In describing his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner asserts he plans to "carry out research on advanced optimization techniques for large-scale deep learning models," which will encompass three areas. The Petitioner details three intended projects, including: l) developing quantization-aware training techniques "to improve the accuracy and stability of deep learning models in low-precision settings," 2) "developing memory-efficient second-order optimization methods for training large language models," and 3) developing a "curvature-aware adaptive learning rate method for deep learning projects." A letter from ac=]principal AI scientist similarly asserts that the Petitioner's work as a research scientist ate=] "advances large-scale AI systems more broadly," which are "necessary for innovation in important industries like healthcare, finance, and national security." We acknowledge the importance of these goals and the fields implicated by the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. However, the determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of these fields in general, but rather "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."Proposed endeavor too vague Id. at 889.
Here, the letter from a principal AI scientist at~acknowledges that the Petitioner's research benefits their employer as "his research has a practical influence on I I AI infrastructure by collaborating with teams working on large language models, computer vision, and recommendation systems in addition to specific algorithmic breakthroughs."Benefits limited to an employer or its clients The letter also claims the benefits of the Petitioner's research will extend beyond their common employer as it "has a wider influence on the AI and optimization communities outside of-c=]due to his publications, partnerships, and attendance at conferences."2 However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the c=]principal AI scientist who submitted a letter of support for him has the authority to determine whether the Petitioner's own work for~ is authorized for public dissemination, whether through publication, partnership, or conference attendance. In addition, the letter does not detail which aspect of the Petitioner's work is intended for dissemination outside ofc::] Absent this information, it is not clear that the contents of such dissemination would impact the field and industry more broadly, to the level of national importance. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating that his proposed endeavor's benefits would extend beyond his employer to have a sufficiently broad impact on the field.No broader implications shown
The Petitioner also does not assert or otherwise demonstrate the impact of his proposed endeavor would amount to substantial positive economic effects under this prong or have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, including in an economically depressed area.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of his endeavor.
B. Additional Dhanasar Prongs and Ineligibility
As our finding on this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and reserve whether the Petitioner has met the additional prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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 of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 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 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.