The Petitioner, an engineering graduate student, 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 l 53(b )(2).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&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 establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver ofthe required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states 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) Uoining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature).
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
For the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification, SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree. 2 The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. SCOPS determined that while the Petitioner established meeting the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he did not demonstrate meeting the first and third Dhanasar prongs. Upon de novo review, we agree with SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong.3 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS abused its discretion by failing to consider the totality of the evidence and making incorrect conclusions of law and statements of the facts in analyzing the evidence. We disagree with the Petitioner's assessment of SCOPS' decision.
To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance of the evidence standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) ofthe evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 7 6.; see also Matter ofEM-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79- 80 (Comm'r 1989). In addition, 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) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973,976 (1st Cir.1992)); 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). Based on the record, SCOPS' decision is a reasoned interpretation and consideration of the evidence. SCOPS acknowledged documents submitted and weighed the evidence but determined that the evidence lacked probative value. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The proposed endeavor, as described, and the evidence in the record do not support the Petitioner's asse1iions that the potential impact of his endeavor would have a broader impact on his field or implications rising to a level of national importance.No broader implications shown
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. Id. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the impmiance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. An endeavor is more specific than a general occupation and should include details of the types of work a petitioner 2 To qualify for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner submitted an academic evaluation, diplomas, and academic transcripts indicating he earned a master of science in engineering from I I in Nepal. Based on the evidence, the Petitioner has established he is an advanced degree professional.
intends to undertake and describe specific projects and goals. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual.
The Petitioner claims that SCOPS erroneously conflated his proposed endeavor with his prospective employment as an assistant professor. Instead, he maintains that his proposed endeavor is to conduct research work which would be separate from his employment as an assistant professor. He asserts his endeavor is of national importance based on it having "significant national and even global implications with respect to U.S. objectives related to technological leadership and the broader economic goals of the United States."
The Petitioner indicates that he is currently pursuing his PhD at I Iin Tennessee.
According to the Petitioner's statement, after attaining his PhD, he intends to conduct research while working as an assistant professor for a U.S. university, such asl ~ For his proposed endeavor, his research would be focused on developing and implementing innovative algorithm training methods "rooted in linguistics, cognitive science, and game theory for deep learning models, including large language models." He aims "to enhance natural language processing capabilities in both low-resource non-English languages and specialized domains of high-resources languages, ultimately improving communication technologies and language accessibility worldwide." He maintains his research would improve equitable access and use of artificial intelligence by bridging the gap between high-resource and low-resource languages. In addition, the Petitioner's research aims to reduce the costs and data qualities needed to train algorithms with large language models by designing "superior learning algorithms rooted in research from linguistics, cognitive science, and game theory." As an assistant professor, he contends that he would have the opportunity to apply for federal funding, hire a research team, perform research, publish his research in peer-reviewed journals and conferences, and pursue patents and licensing of his research work.
In his request for evidence reply, the Petitioner provides a statement which summarizes three planned research projects to advance his proposed endeavor. For the first project, his focus would be to improve machine learning in the medical field. He claims that because traditional algorithms do not fit in the medical domain, he intends to investigate better algorithms with smaller model size by "grounding existing learning models with insights from computational linguistics, cognitive science, and game theory." By having a connection with a university such asl lhe explains that he would have access to facilitating collaborative research with healthcare institutions and data custodians using data-sharing agreements for controlled access to anonymized medical datasets. He claims that by improving artificial intelligence for medical datasets institutions, his proposed research would increase positive patient outcomes such as reduced diagnosis time and early selection of treatment protocols; decrease treatment costs; reduce relapses; and construct more efficient medical decisions.
For the second project, he intends to research better learning algorithms for large language models based on language games. Such research would build on existing preliminary industry research of interactive self-play algorithms in order "to develop novel approaches for continuously improving [artificial intelligence] models without any new data." He claims his research will "produce learning algorithms that are significantly more data-efficient than existing technologies" with more costefficient artificial intelligence models for finance, legal, medical, and public administration sectors. p. 4 For the third project, he would research the problem of algorithmic collusion, which can occur when artificial intelligence models incur bias and show unexpected behaviors. The Petitioner indicates his algorithmic collusion research would build on his previous research, using methods from game theory and multi-agency reinforcement learning to understand the undesirable behaviors of algorithmic collusion. He claims his research will provide solutions to algorithmic collusion to aid in fair market competition that benefits both consumers, businesses, and the U.S. economy, and will prevent discrimination in sectors such as law enforcement, public administration, and healthcare. The Petitioner's statement, however, provides summaries, without specific details or supporting evidence, of his three intended projects. The Petitioner describes projects that differ from each other and generally convey ideas for developing improved artificial intelligence models and training algorithms by studying data from linguistics, cognitive science, and game theory. While the Petitioner conducting research as an assistant professor at a U.S. university with a focus on developing improved artificial intelligence algorithms using linguistics, cognitive science, and game theory research studies may demonstrate the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, it does not support or demonstrate its prospective potential impact nationally, or even globally, or through broader implications rising to a level of national importance. Moreover, the Petitioner indicates he is currently pursuing his PhD, and while he intends to start his proposed endeavor research projects after completing his PhD, he has not clearly explained a timeline for completing his PhD or when he would start his proposed endeavor. As a comparison, the petitioner in Dhanasar demonstrated that he conducted research and development in the field of air and space propulsion, more specifically, hypersonic propulsion systems involving speeds above Mach 5, and he had developed a novel method for accurately calculating hypersonic airflow. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 891-92. In addition, he submitted evidence reflecting that he would continue his research into designing and developing propulsion systems in nano-satellites, rocket-propelled ballistic missiles, and single-stage-to-orbit vehicles and substantial supporting evidence of how his continued research would assist the United States in maintaining its advantage over other nations in hypersonic flight, including documentation reflecting his receipt of funding from a government entity for his research. Id.
The Petitioner summarized three different proposed research projects, but he has not provided the level ofspecific details or documentation as required under Dhanasar to support his claims that his proposed research projects have the potential to have the claimed impact to his field of artificial intelligence or other fields and industries. The Petitioner mainly relies on his statements, without corroborating evidence, to characterize his proposed research work as valuable for advancing the field of artificial intelligence. He has not provided evidence sufficient to support his claims that his proposed research projects would advance his field more broadly. The Petitioner has not detailed or established with supporting evidence his plans to introduce novel technologies or advancements that may be disseminated to or adopted by others operating in the field or industry. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. As the Petitioner has not done so here, he has not sufficiently established that his proposed endeavor in the United States will have national importance under the first Dhanasar prong. While the Petitioner argues that SCOPS erroneously dismissed his colleagues' recommendation letters corroborating his claims, the letters and his statements have not detailed or established his plans to introduce the claimed novel and innovative advancements which may be disseminated to or adopted p. 5 by others operating in the field or industry. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See id. Instead, his statements and letters from his colleagues in the field mainly provide general summaries of his previous research projects without describing in detail his proposed endeavor and the claimed novel and innovative advancements.Proposed endeavor too vague
For instance, the record includes a letter from an assistant professor with the Department of Computer Science and Mechanical Engineering atl I The letter states that the Petitioner's research "focuses on advancing algorithmic game theory and deep reinforcement learning for applications in ridesharing, traffic management, logistics, and autonomous robotics." The letter generally discusses the Petitioner's integration of cognitive science principles into model training to develop a novel approach to improving small language models' ability to reason about numbers. However, the letter and other evidence in the record lacks information about how the Petitioner's previous research with applications for ridesharing, traffic management, logistics, and autonomous robotics relates to any of his three proposed research projects which aim to improve machine learning in the medical field, learning algorithms for large language models, and issues caused by algorithmic collusion.
Another letter from the Petitioner's research colleague describes having a shared interest in Nepali natural language processing and their collaboration on constructing word embeddings for different preprocessing approaches, including the Nepali-language construction and writing code. His research colleague, however, only discusses the Petitioner's previous research work and did not mention his proposed research projects. Likewise, an independent advisory opinion from a research faculty professor at I !indicates the author used the Petitioner's previous research of language models bolstering technological capabilities of Nepali language processing. While the opinion generally references that the Petitioner's ongoing research is of importance, it does not specifically mention the Petitioner's proposed research.
We acknowledge the Petitioner's academic achievements and contributions, but he has not offered sufficient information and evidence based on these recommendation letters and his previous research work to demonstrate his claims ofproviding new innovative machine learning technologies that would impact the field or any other industries. These letters relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, instead of speaking to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The second prong of the Dhanasar framework "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's fust prong. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. Id. at 889. The Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor has the potential to impact national government initiatives, in particular initiatives related to improving U.S. healthcare and the economy, as well as initiatives recognizing the importance of supporting artificial intelligence and machine learning for national security and progress in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). For instance, he claims his proposed research project focused on improving machine learning in the medical field has the potential to overcome limitations in traditional algorithm approaches which would transform the national healthcare system and support national initiatives, such as those from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. And he claims his proposed research on p. 6 algorithmic collusion would address initiatives by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice to promote responsible artificial intelligence. Moreover, he maintains that his endeavor involves research to advance STEM technologies, in particular artificial intelligence technologies which are recognized by the U.S. National Science and Technology Council as being critical and emerging. In support of his claims, the Petitioner referenced national initiatives and submitted articles and reports relating to artificial intelligence; computer science; large language models; sustainability development goals prioritizing resilient infrastructure, sustainable industrialization, and access to communications technology; impacts of artificial intelligence on the economy and politics; and U.S. government policies on artificial intelligence.
While USCIS recognizes specific evidentiary considerations relating to STEM degrees and fields, "the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(2). We acknowledge the overall value of the advancement of artificial intelligence and machine learning and attracting qualified professionals in related careers, and strengthening our nation's technology, particularly technology recognized as critical and emerging, but their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular. See id. The importance of an industry or field is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework. The evidence submitted to support his claims do not discuss the Petitioner's specific research work. The Petitioner has not sufficiently detailed his proposed research developing and implementing innovative training methods rooted in linguistics, cognitive science, and game theory for deep learning models, or provided supporting evidence to understand how it would advance STEM technologies with sufficiently broad potential implications for his field rising to the level of national importance. SCOPS further determined that while the Petitioner established that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong, he did not establish that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification under Dhanasar 's third prong.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner qualifies for the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. This identified basis for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, and therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under the second and third prongs of Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting 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
Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar p. 7 analytical framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons.
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.