Beneficiary, a clinical data scientist, 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 section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish 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 pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproofto 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 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 the beneficiary is 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 the beneficiary's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, the petitioner must then demonstrate that the beneficiary merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 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 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
The Beneficiary's proposed endeavor is to develop innovative data science methods and models to improve access to medical care and patient outcomes in rural communities. SCOPS found that the Beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The sole 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 first prong of the Dhanasar framework, SCOPS determined that the proposed endeavor as described above has substantial merit and is of national impmiance. Upon review of the record, we agree that the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether an individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals.Past record does not show influence or success Id. at 890. In evaluating the Petitioner's request for a national interest waiver, SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary is well positioned to advance the endeavor, or that, on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirements.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification Upon de novo review, we adopt and affirm SCOPS's decision. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below "is not only common practice, but universally accepted").
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts, among other things, that SCOPS' s failure to provide notice of intent to deny (NOTD) was arbitrary and capricious and that SCOPS did not consider all the evidence or adequately explain the rationale underlying their determination. The Petitioner does not cite to any binding precedent in support of its assertion that SCOPS was arbitrary and capricious in not providing a NOTD. Although 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8)(iii) gives USCTS the discretion to issue a request for evidence (RFE) or a NOID, neither the Act nor the regulations compels us to do so. It is within the agency's discretion whether to issue either of the two. See generally l USCIS Policy Manual E.6(F), https://www.uscis.gov/po1icy-manual (providing, as guidance, that USCTS has the discretion to issue RFEs, NOIDs, or to issue a denial without issuing either under some instances). Moreover, SCOPS did issue an RFE in this case providing the Petitioner notice of deficiencies in his initial filing. Next, the Petitioner claims that SCOPS focused on evidence initially submitted and did not address the evidence submitted in its RFE response. However, on page three of SCOPS's decision, they specifically acknowledged the Petitioner's RFE response and upon de novo review we have considered the entire record. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration of the petition, and has made p. 3 adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim a petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence a petitioner presents. See Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022); Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir. 1992); ajf'd Morales v. INS, 208 F.3d 323,328 (1st Cir. 2000); see also Pakasi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 2009); andKazemzadeh v. US Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009).
SCOPS reviewed the record evidence, Iincluding the Beneficiary's pers.onal statement, education documentation, his projects at his scholarly research papers, articles, and conference presentations, invitations to • oin the editorial boards of·ournals, notice of selection to serve as session chair at the 2024 ._________________________. annual conference, recommendation letters from the Beneficiary's collaborators, colleagues, mentors, academic and professional acquaintances, letters from independent experts in the field, and other articles and reports. SCOPS also properly addressed the Petitioner's arguments that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor is nationally important because it: is within a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) field and within the construction industry; aligns with national initiatives; and addresses talent shortages. SCOPS fmiher concluded that the expert letters did not identify any specific recognition the Beneficiary has received for achievements and significant contributions to the healthcare data science industry. In addition, SCOPS noted that the letters do not identify any specific recognition the Beneficiary has received from peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations for his contributions to the field that would set him apart from his peers. SCOPS further noted that the Petitioner did not provide evidence of patents, technology transfers, or licensed work crediting the beneficiary's contribution.
On appeal, the Petitioner re-argues that the proposed endeavor aligns with national initiatives. However, as SCOPS dete1mined, merely working in an important field or in an area a government entity has described as a priority is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. See Dhanasar, at 889 ( explaining that in determining national importance, we do not focus on the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work but on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake"). The Petitioner also reiterates excerpts from the Beneficiary's recommendation and expert letters which state that the Beneficiary's predictive modeling have improved attendance rates in rural communities by analyzing patient behaviors. The letters describe his work as exceptionally proficient, innovative, and impactful. The submission of solicited letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. See Matter ofCaron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988); see also Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact").
The Petitioner also submitted five articles citing to the Beneficiary's article applying machine learning and statistical analysis in relation to patients not attending scheduled medical appointments (noshows). None of the aiiicles submitted with the appeal demonstrate that the Beneficiary's work is of major influence in the field or innovative, employing traditional methods of evaluation and being similar to other studies. The articles refer to the Beneficiary's work in the context of reviewing literature and characterize it as a reliable study using classic algorithms with findings that echo the findings of many similar studies. These articles do not meet the Petitioner's burden to show that the Beneficiary is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
The record demonstrates that the Beneficiary has conducted, published, and presented research during his graduate studies and professional career, but he has not shown that this work renders him wellpositioned to advance his proposed research. While we recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication, presentation, funding, or academic credit, not every individual who has performed original research will be found to be wellpositioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Rather, we examine the factors set forth in Dhanasar to detennine whether, for instance, the individual's progress towards achieving the goals of the proposed research, record of success in similar efforts, or generation of interest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890. For example, the Beneficiary has not shown his work has garnered prizes or that he has personally secured funding for his research.2 The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary's published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the clinical data science field or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the clinical data science community. Nor does the evidence otherwise show that his work constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing research relating to clinical data science. As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary is well-positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor, the Petitioner has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.
We observe that the Petitioner asse1is it would be impractical for the Beneficiary to secure a job offer because labor certification process is not designed to support innovative activities at such an advanced level and requiring such specific data science and healthcare access in rural areas, such as the knowledge possessed bf the Breficiary.Labor certification not shown to be impractical However, the Petitioner hired the Beneficiary as a research clinical data scientist at in October 2022. The Petitioner did not indicate that the position was temporary. Consequently, the record does not support the Petitioner's claim that it would be impractical for the Beneficiary to obtain a job offer.
We conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, which is dispositive of this appeal, and we reserve the issue of whether he has demonstrated that he meets the third Dhanasar prong. 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 527 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary is an advanced degree professional eligible for EB-2 classification, and that the Beneficiary meets the first Dhanasar prong. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary meets the second Dhanasar prong or that he merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest.
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 of the 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.