The Petitioner, a chemist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional, 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 the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus ofthe labor certification, would be in the national interest. 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 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 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 EB-2 classification, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 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 a matter of discretion1 , 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.
Substantial Merit and National Importance
The sole issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework.
The first Dhanasar 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. Upon review, we disagree with SCOPS' conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor has substantial merit and we withdraw this determination. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor falls within the range of areas of substantial merit, namely science and technology. Id. However, while the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not establish its national importance.
The Petitioner, describing himself as an "expert in the field chemistry," states his proposed endeavor in the United States is as follows:
[To] continue his research on elucidating complex biochemical processes at scales ranging from molecule-level protein dynamics to system-level biochemical reactions as a basis for developing innovative chemical tools for use in medical and energy applications in order to promote a healthier and more sustainable world.
The Petitioner emphasizes that his proposed endeavor would be focused on critical and emerging technologies identified by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), including biotechnologies and genome and protein engineering. When discussing the prospective national importance of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner asserted that the United States power grid was in decline experiencing a 60% increase in blackouts over the last five years and the Department of Energy's (DOE) allocating of over $325 million to bolster the power grid. The Petitioner states that he is "indispensable to the United States for reinforcing the nation's power grid by leveraging knowledge of biochemical mechanisms to promote sustainable energy harvesting, storage, and conversion." The Petitioner also points to the fact that his research is being funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for the purpose of promoting progress in science and "to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability." The Petitioner further provides several support letters from professors and colleagues in his field, including one from a professor ofchemistry and chemical biology atl IThel professor with whom the Petitioner's would continue his research indicates that this work "is essential for deciphering the root causes of numerous disorders, including neurogenerative conditions like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's" as well as having "profound implications for biotechnology and [the] pharmaceutical industries enabling more sustainable and productive biochemical processes." The letter also indicated that the Petitioner's research would contribute to "the broader understanding of I p. 3 evolutionary strategies" informing "advancements in synthetic biology." In addition, another letter from an associate professor at~---------~asserted that the Petitioner's research "is crucial in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, mitigating climate change, and promoting energy security through domestic renewable fuel production." This professor indicated that this would be accomplished through the Petitioner's development of an innovative biomimetic artificial photosynthesis system.
SCOPS later issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating that the Petitioner had submitted vague statements as to the national importance of his proposed endeavor.Proposed endeavor too vague SCOPS emphasized that the evidence provided did not demonstrate the benefits the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have on the regional or national economy rising to the level of substantial economic effects contemplated by Dhanasar.Job creation or economic claims unsupported As such, SCOPS requested additional evidence to establish the potential prospective national impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.
In response, the Petitioner stated that his "research uncovers novel insights into the molecular level dynamics of proteins, thereby directly facilitating the development of novel treatment avenues for cancer." The Petitioner also stated the following in an RFE response letter:
[The Petitioner] engineered ultrasound responsive nanoparticles which eliminated the need for bulky light-emitting diode implants in optogenetics, synthesized photothermal materials to improve the precision and ethicality of deep-brain stimulation research and non-invasive neurological treatment strategies, and uncovered the mechanisms by which enzyme collectives thrive with vital applications in biotechnology and enzymefocused medical interventions.
The Petitioner again emphasized the impact his research would have on the development of a "biometric artificial photosynthesis platform" creating renewable energy to improve sustainable energy production. The Petitioner asserted that his proposed endeavor was in alignment with U.S. national interests highlighting its national importance, particularly executive orders emphasizing public health, climate change, and developing renewable energy strategies. In addition, in a personal statement, the Petitioner indicated that the "principal aim" of his research is to develop "novel-protein based vaccines against [the] influenza and SARS-CoV viruses" and that this effort would "substantially reduce the public health impact of seasonal flu and any future coronavirus outbreaks" bolstering the United States' ability to respond rapidly in pandemics.
In denying the petition and concluding the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor, SCOPS determined that the evidence provided was inconsistent and vague.Inconsistencies in the record SCOPS emphasized that the Petitioner made significant changes to his proposed endeavor highlighting differing objectives, including combatting cancer and elsewhere on the record, neurological diseases. SCOPS determined he did not establish that his proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects and have a broad impact raising to the level of substantial economic benefits contemplated in Dhanasar.No broader implications shown
On appeal, the Petitioner disagrees with SCOPS' determination that he made material changes to the record, asserting that he has always stressed the biochemical nature ofhis research and its overlapping impacts on "biology, chemistry, and biochemistry in innovative designs," including in medical and p. 4 energy applications.Tried to change the endeavor after filing The Petitioner contends he has "firmly established" that his proposed endeavor has national importance by developing innovative chemical tools for use in medical and energy applications.
In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting that"[a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within 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.
First, the Petitioner submitted a confusing array of potential technologies and national impacts leaving substantial uncertainty as to whether his proposed endeavor would be likely to have a potential prospective national impact. For instance, as indicated by SCOPS, the Petitioner emphasized in support of the petition potential national impacts on power disruptions and reductions in blackouts, indicating that he was "indispensable" to reinforcing the nation's power grid. Meanwhile, submitted recommendation letters from his colleagues at major universities discussed potential national impacts on neurogenerative conditions like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's as well as his research having "profound implications" on the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Another letter from a colleague asserted that his work would be crucial in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, mitigating climate change, and promoting energy security through domestic renewable foel production. This letter also discussed the Petitioner's potential development of an innovative biomimetic artificial photosynthesis system for this purpose. Still further, the Petitioner appeared to assert that his proposed endeavor would also have a potential prospective national impact on "the broader understanding of evolutionary strategies" informing "advancements in synthetic biology."
However, in each case, the Petitioner submits little objective support to sufficiently substantiate that his proposed endeavor would have national level impacts on so many different major national and international problems, including power disruptions, major neurological diseases, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, climate change, renewable energy, artificial photosynthesis, evolutionary strategies, among others. Although we acknowledge that chemistry and the Petitioner's proposed technological advancements could intersect with many national problems and industries, his far-reaching and dispersed claims with respect to national importance leaves substantial question as to whether his proposed endeavor would have a potential prospective national impact on any of these major national issues. For instance, it is not clear how research being conducted by one research assistant without a doctorate degree would have such far reaching implications, particularly when this research appears dispersed into so many fields.
The Petitioner did not sufficiently clear up this ambiguity in response to the RFE but continued to expand his bold assertions as to national importance, for instance emphasizing his proposed endeavor's potential prospective national impact on the treatment of cancer. It is noteworthy that a potential prospective national impact on cancer treatment was not even mentioned in support of the petition. The Petitioner contends that this does not represent a material change. We disagree, since this asserted national level impact went from being unmentioned to being the Petitioner's primary p. 5 basis for national importance in response to the RFE. Likewise, in a personal statement provided in response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the "principal aim [ emphasis added]" of his research is to develop "novel-protein based vaccines against [the] influenza and SARS-CoV viruses" and that this effort would "substantially reduce the public health impact of seasonal flu and any future coronavirus outbreaks" bolstering the United States' ability to respond rapidly in pandemics. Again, the Petitioner mentioned no prospective national level impact on vaccines and pandemics in support of the petition, despite referencing numerous other potential national impacts. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998).
The Petitioner's varied and bold assertions without sufficient supporting evidence leave doubt to the prospective national impact of his proposed endeavor on any of the major national issues and/or industries he discussed, such as a flu season he indicates affected 34 million Americans in 2024, Alzheimer's impacting an estimated 6.9 million in the country, and massive carbon dioxide and cancer problems, among other large national and international issues and their related industries. As noted, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. However, the Petitioner has presented a wide array of endeavors, albeit residing in a similar field of technology, as well as a litany of potential prospective national impacts leaving its likely impact unclear. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to a field have little probative value. See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US. Atty Gen., 745 F. See also, Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications).
The Petitioner further asserts on appeal that his proposed endeavor is "in alignment with" executive orders related to advancing biotechnology and biomanufacturing to promote sustainability. He also emphasizes a report from the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) discussing enhanced predictive modeling and engineering design of biological systems and cardon dioxide removal. However, the fact that the Petitioner's research may be in general alignment with government initiatives does not demonstrate that his specific proposed endeavor would have a potential prospective national impact on these initiatives. As we have discussed, the Petitioner has presented a wide array of potential national impacts, not only on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but also related to cancer, neurological diseases, vaccines against major viruses, the nation's power grid, pharmaceuticals, among others. Therefore, the Petitioner's contention that his proposed endeavor would have a national level impact on advancing biotechnology and biomanufacturing to promote sustainability is not credible and he has provided little objective support for this assertion. As stated, it is not the importance ofthe industry or the national issues itself that establishes national importance, but the actual potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. Here, the Petitioner has not established a sufficiently clear proposed endeavor and resulting potential prospective national impact.
In contrast, the Petitioner often emphasizes his skills and education, co-authored articles, and his work on a variety of research projects as a research assistant at~------~· However, while we recognize that the Petitioner gained substantial knowledge and experience while earning his master's p. 6 degree and working towards his doctorate atl las a research assistant, the Petitioner's expertise and record of success is a consideration under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of a specific proposed endeavor. The Petitioner does not sufficiently detail and document how his proposed research would be materially different from other similarly experienced researchers working in this field, including his many colleagues atl lor at other major universities mentioned on the record, leaving doubt as to the likelihood of the potential prospective national impact of his many proposed endeavors.
Lastly, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Dhansar at 890. Although the Petitioner contended that this was not the only means to demonstrate national importance, and we agree, it nevertheless is worthy of discussion as he did mention potential economic impacts resulting from his research. However, the Petitioner did not submit specific and targeted business plans but provides generic assertions about impacting numerous aspects of the economy, each which could be reasonably deemed separate, large, such as pharmaceuticals, energy, or medical care. Although any basic economic activity resulting from the Petitioner's work has the potential to positively impact the economy, he has not provided sufficient explanation of the prospective national impact directly attributable to his proposed work or established how his endeavor would impact an economically depressed area. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under Dhanasar's second prong. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reached"); see also Matter ofL-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).
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.