The Petitioner, a data scientist, 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. § 1153(b)(2). SCOPS denied the Petitioner's Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, concluding that the Petitioner established his underlying eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, but that he did not establish he merited a national interest waiver. 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 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 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 l&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.
National Interest W Aiyer
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional and therefore qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. Thus, the remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver.
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as a data scientist at his current employer, an online job search and social platform. SCOPS denied the Petitioner's national interest waiver, concluding that the Petitioner had not established his proposed endeavor was nationally important under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework as required for the waiver. As the Petitioner did not establish that he met the requirements of the first Dhanasar prong, SCOPS declined to address whether he met the criteria under the remaining second and third Dhanasar prongs, namely that he was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and that on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. Id. On appeal, the Petitioner claims SCOPS erred in its conclusion by failing to analyze his eligibility for the waiver under all three of the Dhanasar prongs, that he meets all three of the Dhanasar prongs, and that he overall merits a national interest waiver.
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first 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, and "look for broader implications." For instance, we noted in Dhanasar that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. Further, "[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. SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit under the first Dhanasar prong. We agree. For the reasons discussed below, we also agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework, as he has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
Initially, we note that the Petitioner refers to our non-precedent decisions concerning national interest waivers in the context ofdata science and emerging technologies. These decisions were not published as a precedent and therefore do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Additionally, as noted above, we review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N at 537 n.2.
We also acknowledge the evidence of the Petitioner's education and experience in the field of data science as it applies to job searches and job matching, including the information contained in his resume and letters of recommendation. This evidence, however, relates to whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor rather than whether his proposed endeavor is nationally important. Similarly, we note the articles he provided that discuss the importance of the blue-collar workforce and the job recrnitment market for those individuals. Our focus in assessing p. 3 national importance, however, is on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake and its prospective impact rather than the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's See id. at 889.
The Petitioner provided personal statements wherein he stated that as a data scientist at his current company he endeavors "to advance algorithms, optimize resource distribution, and integrate AI features to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of job search and job matching platforms for millions ofblue-collar workers .... " He claimed that he is advancing state-of-the-art job matching and employment solutions and that this helps to mitigate labor shortages, increases economic productivity, amplifies the reach and effectiveness of governmental initiatives, and improves individual lives. The Petitioner also provided a letter of recommendation from the vice president of his company who described the Petitioner's role at the company as well as several projects he implemented there. Finally, the Petitioner submitted an expert-opinion letter and three letters of recommendation from former coworkers and a professional acquaintance that generally speak to his character and professional experience, as well as articles relating to worker shortages and the importance ofthe bluecollar workforce, the AI-based job recrnitment market and AI in general, and his current employer.Support letters generic or unsupported The Petitioner does not submit additional evidence on appeal.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence described above clearly demonstrates the national significance of his proposed endeavor. We disagree as the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate his work as a data scientist with his current company would extend beyond his current company's interests and specific clientele in a manner that has national or global impact in the field of data science or the overall effectiveness ofjob searches and job matching. Similarly, the record is insufficient to establish that the services he provides to his company offer original innovations to advance, or will otherwise have national or global implications in, the field of data science, job searches, and job matching commensurate with national importance.
Notably, the Petitioner's statements, expert opinion letter, and letters of recommendation lack sufficient probative detail and instead provide only general assertions regarding the contributions the proposed endeavor may make to his company's target audiences or the broader workforce in general.Proposed endeavor too vague They further are not corroborated by the record to establish the proposed endeavor would have broader implications in the field or prospective impact.No broader implications shown For instance, the vice president of the company generally described the Petitioner's role at the company and several projects he implemented. In discussing the impact of the projects, however, the vice president described the resulting benefits to the company rather than any broader impact, saying that completion of the projects "brought remarkable benefits to [his current employer]" and "significant business outcomes," including increases in "user engagement and application rates," that contributed to "over $1 million in revenue growth for the company annually." Similarly, while the expert opinion letter also discusses the Petitioner's achievements at his current employer, the letter only generally concludes that the Petitioner's "contributions align with national interests by enhancing workforce development and economic stability," rather than specifically addressing how those contributions mitigate labor shortages, increase economic productivity, amplify the reach and effectiveness of governmental initiatives, or improve individual lives on a scale commensurate with national importance as the Petitioner asserts would result from his proposed endeavor. Moreover, the articles submitted by the Petitioner do not address the specific endeavor or the services the Petitioner would provide through his company as part of his endeavor, nor do they discuss with any specificity the impact or broader p. 4 implications ofthose plans to corroborate the claimed impact he asserts would result from his proposed endeavor.
Finally, while the Petitioner, expert opinion letter, and letters of recommendation generally claim his proposed endeavor would support economic growth and create new employment opportunities, the generalized conclusions in his statement and the letters are insufficient to demonstrate that continuing his employment with his company would have substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, or that the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers rather than increasing revenue for his company.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Accordingly, we find the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor is nationally important.
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, requiring that he demonstrate his proposed endeavor is nationally important. He therefore has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. As noted above, SCOPS did not address whether the Petitioner was well positioned to advance his 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, as are required under prongs two and three of the Dhanasar analytical framework.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification While the Petitioner claims the failure to address those prongs renders the decision arbitrary and capricious, SCOPS was not required to address the remaining Dhanasar prongs to issue its decision. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). Similarly, since our determination that the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor is nationally important is dis positive of his appeal, we also decline to reach and hereby reserve any appellate arguments on those issues.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.