The Petitioner, a data scientist, 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).
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the proposed endeavor was of national importance, the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor, or that it would be beneficial to waive the requirements of a job offer. 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 of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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 of a bachelor's degree. 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.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) 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.
Analysts
The Director found that the Beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, upon de novo review, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
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. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889.
The appeal brief states that the Beneficiary works at the Petitioner's company as a Senior Data Scientist. In this position she has a variety of responsibilities. She develops and helps other teams implement models to identify and effectively engage high intent users. She also uses data to make forecasts, interpret trends and patterns, construct recommendations, and analyze business problems and potential strategies. In particular, the petition notes the Beneficiary's work with I I I Iwhere she has developed a model which determines a customer's likelihood ofusing mortgage services within the next four months, which gives employees "a systematic method for nurturing leads and efficiently directing them to loan officers," while combating biases in artificial intelligence. The evidence provided does establish that the proposed endeavor is of substantial merit. However, it does not demonstrate that the specific endeavor is of national importance.
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 "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). p. 3 a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n 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. To evaluate whether the proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of the Beneficiary's work. 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893.
Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established how the Beneficiary's position will have a broader impact on the field beyond the Petitioner's company and customers, a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or substantial positive economic effects, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. 26 I&N Dec. at 889.No broader implications shown We observe that the functions described in the record show that her work helps the Petitioner's operations by using data and artificial intelligence to improve operations. Nevertheless, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Beneficiary as a single employee would affect the home loan or the artificial intelligence and machine learning fields more broadly beyond the Petitioner. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
In their appeal brief, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's contribrutions to should be "sufficient" to establish national importance as the "impact of AI and technological endeavors should be clear as the company has the largest! Inationwide." This argument is flawed. While the Petitioner may be the largest it does not follow that it is also the largest home loan provider. In any event, the Petitioner cannot rely on its market share alone to claim the Beneficiary's work is nationally important. They must show how the functions and tasks carried out by the Beneficimy coalesce into a nationally important endeavor.
We acknowledge that the Beneficiary's work touches upon many important fields, like artificial intelligence in the mortgage field. However, the record as presented does not sufficiently establish that the work the Beneficiary does with the Petitioner will have a significant impact beyond the Petitioner's company and its customers to have a nationally important impact on the field. 2 The Petitioner provided a number of articles, reports, publications from the Petitioner, and letters of recommendation. Many of the articles and reports3 provide background on the field or explain the field's importance. The importance of the field does not determine the proposed endeavor's national importance.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Furthermore, though these articles and reports provide helpful background information, they are of little evidentiary value to the issue of national importance. This is because they do not address the Beneficiary's specific work.
The publications from and regarding the Petitioner discuss their work at large, with artificial intelligence, and with home loans. While these articles show the existence of the Petitioner's home loan business and various business statistics, they do not adequately establish that the Beneficiary's work will extend beyond the Petitioner's customers. For example, one article discusses the issues in navigating fair housing rules in large language models and how the Petitioner is working to train its systems "rendering them safe for [their] users." It does briefly note that the Petitioner is "exploring the possibility of open sourcing [their] classifier and the supporting data," but does not provide further 2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 3 One ofthe articles. which discuss the Petitioner's use ofartificial intelligence was published after the filing ofthe petition. A petitioner must meet all of the eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), ( 12). p. 4 detail. Without more, the article's language denotes the limitation of the Beneficiary's work to the Petitioner's customers. There is not enough to establish that the work of the Petitioner will have a nationally important impact on the field. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76.
The Petitioner also presented a number of letters of support for the Beneficiary. Many of these letters largely discuss the Petitioner's skills and background, which is more appropriate for the second prong when determining if the beneficiary is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Others discuss the Beneficiary's work with the Petitioner but do not provide sufficient basis for their claims. For instance, in one letter from a coworker, the writer states that the Beneficiary's work with the Petitioner has led to a "noticeable upsurge in activity across the housing market." The letter also avers that the Beneficiary's work has "measurably enhanced market vitality." Yet the writer does not provide further explanation or basis for these claims beyond these sentences. Contentions require support to underpin them, as assertions themselves do not constitute evidence. See, e.g., Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998) ("statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight"). Without more documentation supporting the assertions, there is not enough in the record to establish national importance by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76.
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond the Petitioner to affect the field more broadly.Proposed endeavor too vague Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. For the reasons given above, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under 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 find that they have not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.