The Petitioner, a fraud investigator forl Iseeks 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).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish that she 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 ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&NDec. 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 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 of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&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
- 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 of the 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, she did not demonstrate meeting the first and thi.Itl Dhanasar prongs. Upon de novo review, we agree with SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong. 3 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 importance 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 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 indicates that she intends to continue her work in the United States as a fraud investigator for her employer,! ISpecifically, she states that she will "use and develop [support vector machines to contribute to the develo ment of machine learning] models to identify fraud and cybercrime o_..___________________. She explains that the machine learning models will predict and see in real-time which legitimate users are being targeted by fraudsters so that their accounts can be closed before fraudsters cause more damage. As an example, she describes leading a project in which machine learning models "take data from various sources about past fraud and use a training algorithm to build strength in the model. The [machine learning] model will then see patterns of fraud more easily, and alert a human when suspect fraud is happening, so they can intervene." While in graduate school, she indicates that she developed a novel support vector machine tool which she now uses to helPI Iidentify criminal activity, fraud, and misinformation. By building on her experience with algorithms, she is adapting support vector machines to new trends and evolving threats. We agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit.
Even though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, SCOPS determined that she did not establish that her proposed endeavor is of national importance. SCOPS found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate her proposed endeavor would extend beyond her employer and its clients to have a potential prospective impact on her field or the nation more broadly at a level consistent with national importance.No broader implications shown On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS' decision has numerous errors, in that the decision lacked reasoned consideration and analysis of all arguments and evidence submitted in support of her proposed endeavor being of national importance. We disagree with the Petitioner's assessment of SCOPS' decision.
To determine whether a petitioner has met his or her burden under the preponderance of the evidence standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.; 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. U.S. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. U.S. 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 assertions that the potential impact of her endeavor extends beyond her employer and its clients to have a broader impact on her field or implications rising to the level of national importance.
The Petitioner makes broad claims, without sufficient corroborating evidence, that her work has the potential to advance her fields and impact the U.S. economy, societal welfare, and national government policies. While the Petitioner argues that SCOPS erroneously dismissed her colleagues' recommendation letters corroborating her claims, the letters and her statements have not detailed or established her plans to introduce the claimed novel and innovative advancements which 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 id. Instead, her statements and letters from herl Icolleagues mainly provide general summaries of her work responsibilities and her previous and current projects as a fraud investigator without describing in detail the claimed novel and innovative advancements.Support letters generic or unsupported
For instance, the Petitioner's former manager describes the Petitioner's professional experience with ~ asserting that the Petitioner's work protectd Ifrom fraudulent activity, as her "innovative applications of machine learning algorithms and [support vector machines] to develop automated fraud detection and prevention frameworks enable more efficient and effective fraud prevention." Generally referencing the Petitioner's ongoing projects ate=] her manager maintains that her work developing "novel and important methodologies" drives "the creation and ~mentation of innovative machine learning technologies across the industry." Likewise, another L__J colleague, the Director of Risk Operations, explains projects previously completed by the Petitioner, noting that the Petitioner is working on refining this machine learning model to better detect fraud . The letter explains the Petitioner's second machine learning model work in which she is helping p. 4 to detect and stop spam, fraudulent advertisements, and re-use of stolen bank credentials and other payment fraud. In addition, the letter mentions a third project to measure and improve automation and machine learning models accuracy, detect anomalies, enable real-time monitoring, improve fraud scoring and prioritization and block suspicious transactions before they are processed. The letter emphasizes that the Petitioner's work is critical to maintaining user trust inl I and its success as._______________, Because of the broad use o~ I, he claims her role ensures the safety and security of its platforms, which is essential for economies. However, neither the Petitioner nor her colleagues describe in sufficient detail the novel and important methodologies, or provide evidence corroborating how such have the potential to be implemented across the industry beyondl I
The Petitioner does not sufficiently separate the goals and objectives of her proposed endeavor from the goals and objectives that an employer or entity seeking out her services as a fraud investigator for I Iwould expect. The Petitioner and her colleagues generally explain her projects using support vector machines and developing machine learning methods to identify fraudulent advertising accounts and payment methods in order to reduce time to resolve issues for legitimate accounts and minimize advertisers' lost revenue. She and her colleagues claim her work would have a broader impact because other companies followl I lead, thereby her work would encourage other companies to develop machine learning technologies to enhance their online safety. Besides assertions, however, the Petitioner does not adequately shed light on how her work as a fraud investigator who helps to develop machine learning algorithms to improve the detection of fraud on her employer's I Iwould extend beyond her employer and its users of its services.
A petitioner must also support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See id. In addition, the Petitioner relies on letters of recommendation from her academic collaborators and professors to show the impact of her work on her field. Her academic colleagues, however, mainly focus on the Petitioner's previous academic research and achievements with general statements indicating her contributions to the field would be of value to the United States. For example, the letters emphasize the Petitioner's technical knowledge by describing her successful research with support vector machines, her academic contributions on machine learnin techni ues and her co-founding the We p. 5 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. Here, the Petitioner has not provided this level of focus or evidence to support her claims that her position as a fraud investigator would have a similar broad impact. Instead, the Petitioner's evidence relating to the national importance of her intended work mostly explains her previous academic research, her work responsibilities as a fraud investigator, and the importance of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and cybersecurity. While demonstrating the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, it does not support or demonstrate its prospective potential impact nationally, or even globally, or through broad er implications rising to a level of national importance . The Petitioner submitted articles about I I projects which she claims to have contributed to, including! lwork to increase investment in security and integrity for Brazil's 2022 election; its and its efforts to .__ _________ tacklin misinformation on
The articles submitted show the importance of cybersecurity and how is investing in combatting misinformation, but they do not discuss the Petitio er's pjrticular work or innovations having the claimed broader impact on these important issues,1 work, or the U.S. economy. The importance of an industry or field is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework. Despite the size of the Petitioner's employer and its global reach, the Petitioner must demonstrate her own tasks rise to the level of national importance. While the Petitioner's endeavor may assistc=]and its users, she has not established that her endeavor alone, implemented fo~has national implications within her field.
To further support her assertions, the Petitioner submitted an op1mon from a senior professor of information systems management in the._______________________, in Alabama. The opinion discusses reasons for the Petitioner's endeavor being of national importance, mainly emphasizing that the Petitioner will leverage her academic achievements and professional experience to continue her work as a fraud investigator fore=] As discussed earlier, the Petitioner's academic achievements and professional experience relate to whether she is well-positioned to advance her endeavor under Dhansar's second prong, instead of whether her proposed endeavor is of national importance.
The opinion also explains the importance of internet safety to the .__________.and the growing need for professionals in the cybersecurity field, particularly in fraud detection, prevention, and investigation forl Iin order to prevent adverse effects to the economy and social advancement. However, the opinion's focus on the importance of the cybersecurity industry to the economy and societal welfare, and how the Petitioner's professional experience and work with c=]would help businesses, its users, the economy, and societal welfare are misplaced. As noted above, the importance of an industry, field, or related occupations in a need for qualified workers is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework. The opinion does not focus on the Petitioner's specific endeavor and its potential prospective impact on her field, the U.S. economy, societal welfare, or national initiatives. See id.
Last, the Petitioner claims that her proposed endeavor impacts national government initiatives recognizing the importance of supporting artificial intelligence, machine learning, and cybersecurity for national security and progress in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). She maintains that her endeavor involves work to advance STEM technologies, in particular artificial intelligence, support vector machines, machine learning, and cybersecurity technologies which are recognized by the U.S. National Science and Technology Council as being critical and emerging. In support of her claims, the Petitioner references U.S. government initiatives to address online fraud and identity theft. 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, machine learning, cybersecurity, 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. Being employed at~ Ias a fraud investigator whose work involves these advanced technologies is insufficient to establish national importance. The Petitioner has not sufficiently detailed her proposed work with supporting evidence to understand how it would advance STEM technologies with sufficiently broad potential implications for her field rising to the level of national importance.
Based on the above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her specific undertaking of working as a fraud investigator foie=]stands to have a potential impact beyond her employer and clients, or that her proposed work would otherwise have the claimed broader implications for the technology industry, U.S. technology national initiatives, the economy, or societal welfare. Beyond general assertions, she has not demonstrated with sufficient corroborating independent and objective evidence that the work she proposes to undertake offers the claimed innovations that contribute to advancements in her industry or otherwise has broader implications for her field or the nation commensurate with national importance. The claimed potential impacts of her endeavor depend on numerous factors, and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between her proposed work and the claimed potential impacts.
SCOPS further determined that while the Petitioner established that she is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong, she 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, she 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 appellate arguments and eligibility 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&NDec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, she 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.S(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 of the Act through the issuance of a Form 1-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.