in the field of data science applied to the financial services industry, 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 153(b)(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver as it did not demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor or 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. 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 ofChristo '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 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.
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 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
In the Beneficiary's pos1t10n as an associate in the field of data science atl Ishe endeavors to use machine learning, advanced modelling and simulation methodologies, and advanced computing data processing and analysis techniques to build data pipelines, dashboards, data visualization tools, and data-based reporting solutions. In so doing, she endeavors to ensure the stability and reliability of transaction monitoring operations and anti-financial crime (AFC) program frameworks, increase compliance with the governing regulations that are critical to a stable financial system, and mitigate the risk of financial crime.
The Director determined the Beneficiary qualified for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as an advanced degree professional. The Director also determined the Beneficiary demonstrated the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor but did not establish its national importance. The Director also found that the Beneficiary was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, but on balance, it would not be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" ofthe proposed endeavor and 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.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director misapplied the appropriate legal standard, preponderance of the evidence, and disregarded key, probative evidence. The Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor will positively impact important U.S. national interests, and the broader U.S. societal welfare, beyond! IThe Director however concluded that "it is not apparent that the specific endeavor proposed by the [B]eneficiary ... has broader implications for the industry or field, that the specific endeavor would broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, that the special endeavor stands to impact a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or that it is the subject of national initiatives, or that the specific endeavor otherwise rises to national importance."Proposed endeavor too vague The Petitioner proffers that the Director disregarded the evidence showing the p. 3 impact of the proposed endeavor on critical U.S. economic, national security, and technological interests on a national scale. However, the Director acknowledged that the Beneficiary's employer may benefit from their services and then correctly focused on whether the Petitioner demonstrated whether the benefit rises to the level of national importance contemplated by Dhanasar.
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that there is an estimated $2 trillion in illicit funds being laundered through global financial networks on an annual basis, which amounts to approximately 2% to 5% of the global gross domestic product each year. Thus, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's continued development ofrobust anti-money laundering (AML ), AFC and transaction monitoring technologies will continue to be critical to the U.S. financial services industry's ability to maintain the trust and confidence ofAmericans as well as safeguard its stability in an era ofincreasing prevalent financial fraud. However, we note that the "relevant question is not the importance ofthe field or profession in which the individual will work." We instead focus on the specific endeavor that the Beneficiary proposes to undertake. As the Director stated, the Petitioner must demonstrate how the specific proposed endeavor, in this case, the Beneficiary continuing her position as an associate in the field of data science focusing on artificial intelligence applied to AML, AFC, data visualization and other duties, rises to national importance. After considering the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor, the Director concluded that it had substantial merit. However, an endeavor can meet the substantial merit threshold without rising to the level of national importance. Thus, the Beneficiary's work can be recognized as important and invaluable without meeting the Dhanasar standard. After reviewing the record, we concur with the Director that the Petitioner demonstrated the endeavor has substantial merit but that it does not rise to the level ofnational importance contemplated by Dhanasar.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary's use ofmachine learning, and other technological tools will continue to drive innovation within the financial services industry, "especially in the absolutely fundamental area of anti-financial crime, and bolsters the stability of this critical infrastructure sector, which will continue to be crucial for the U.S.' economic and technological prominence globally." The Petitioner contends this endeavor rises to the level of national importance because it will "safeguard the stability and integrity of the financial services industry, therefore enhancing societal welfare by creating a safer and more reliable financial system for millions of Americans through the proactive detection and prevention of financial crimes." We acknowledge the importance of the field of data science, but the importance of the proposed endeavor is not evaluated by the importance of the profession in which she proposes to engage, but the specific potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor. Dhanasar at 889-890. Similarly, we recognize the value of critical and emerging technologies but merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of a proposed endeavor. For example, classroom teaching activities in these technologies, by themselves, may have substantial merit but are not generally indicative themselves of impact on these field more broadly and would generally not establish their national importance. Here, the Petitioner has also not shown the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor advances these critical and emerging technologies or has broader implications in the field.No broader implications shown The Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary's employer,! lplays a significant role "within the U.S. financial services sector in light of its approximately $1.4 trillion in assets under management," so that the Beneficiary's endeavor is "absolutely in the national interest as it ensures! land the broader financial services industry, an essential element of the U.S. economy and a critical infrastructure sector is able to appropriately identify and mitigate suspicious financial activity that may suggest broader financial crime before it can destabilize the U.S. economy, as well as prevent such crime through the p. 4 implementation ofrobust monitoring models, reports, and dashboards." However, despite the size ofthe Beneficiary's employer and the assets it manages, the Petitioner must demonstrate the Beneficiary's own tasks rise to the level of nationally important endeavor. The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's endeavor alone has national implications within the field. The Petitioner also claims the Beneficiary's innovations in machine learning, advanced modeling and simulation methodologies, and advance computing data processing and analysis techniques to strengthen AFC have the potential to extend beyond the Beneficiary's own employer. However, the national importance of these claimed innovations is not detailed, including the specific nature of such innovations and how they will impact the field at the requisite level.
The Petitioner characterized the Director's conclusions regarding the probative value of her testimonial letters from industry experts as "incredibly problematic," asserting the submitted letters constitute important testimonial evidence that are critical to understanding the full scope of the Beneficiary's contributions to the use of machine learning, and other skills. In addition, the Petitioner claims the Director failed to adhere to the preponderance ofthe evidence standard in reviewing the testimonial letters despite USCIS' long history of accepting expert letters as evidence. However, the Director thoroughly considered the testimonial letters and cited to substantial sections of these letters in their decision. The Director acknowledged the letters provided details ofthe Beneficiary's proposed endeavor and explained how the Beneficiary provided services to the Petitioner including "providing actionable intelligence to internal and external stakeholders." However, the Director determined that while the letters provided specific examples of how her work benefits the Petitioner and its clientele, they nonetheless failed to provide specific explanations and supporting evidence that the endeavor had broader implications for the field, that the specific endeavor had significant positive economic effects, or that it otherwise rises to national importance.Job creation or economic claims unsupported We concur with the Director that the submitted letters contain broad, general assertions that the Beneficiary's work impacts the financial and technological sectors at large, but do not provide details ofhow her specific endeavor will impact the field at the level ofnational importance.Support letters generic or unsupported We note that USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter ofCaron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought. The Petitioner asserts the evidence demonstrates the Beneficiary's endeavor "will help to advance the U.S. interest in attracting and retaining STEM workers, which is critically important given the shortage ofqualified workers in those fields." However, the alleged shortage ofoccupations or occupational skills does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework and such shortages are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.Relied on a labor shortage Further, the Petitioner asserted the Beneficiary's "endeavor will continue to stimulate demand for skilled labor . . . thereby further supporting the job market and contributing to workforce development in several key industries." However, aside from these assertions alone, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's endeavor as an associate in the field ofdata science applied to the financial services industry has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects, as contemplated by Dhanasar.
B. Additional Dhanasar Prongs
As our finding on this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and reserve whether the Petitioner has met the additional prongs of 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 conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.