The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification for the Beneficiary 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).
USCIS denied the petition, concluding that the Beneficiary qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the Petitioner had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the 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 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 Christa'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, it 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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that:
- The proposed endeavor bas both substantial merit and national importance;
- The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
USCIS found that the Beneficiary qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not satisfied any of the prongs set forth in the Dhanasar precedent decision. 2 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.
At the time of filing, the Beneficiary was working for the Petitioner as a "Senior Data Scientist in Advertising" and contributing to the company's "advertising integrity efforts" through projects involving "artificial intelligence (AI)-driven fraud detection and prevention."3 The Beneficiary indicated in his "Professional Plan" that his proposed endeavor is to "[d]evelop and deploy opensource, AI and machine learning (ML )-driven ad fraud detection frameworks that will transform how the United States combats digital advertising fraud." His plan further stated:
Specifically, [the Beneficiary] will: (1) create scalable AI models capable of detecting sophisticated fraud patterns in real-time across Connected TV, mobile, and web advertising platforms; (2) develop industry-standard frameworks and technical documentation that enable businesses of all sizes to implement advanced fraud protection; (3) establish collaborative intelligence-sharing protocols that allow crossplatform fraud pattern recognition while preserving privacy; and (4) contribute to regulatory compliance tools that support federal enforcement efforts.
[The Beneficiary's] four-phase strategic plan over the next decade transcends traditional employment boundaries: (1) establish foundational AI architectures for realtime fraud detection, (2) scale solutions across major advertising platforms, (3) create 2 The Beneficiary received a Master of Science degree in Integrated Marketing Communications from I 1 lin 2011. ,______.
industry-wide standards through open-source frameworks, and (4) implement global regulatory compliance systems.
In response to USCIS' request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner wrote:
[The Beneficiary's] full-time employment at [the Petitioner] represents the enterprisescale track of his proposed endeavor. His responsibilities include leading the I Ifraud detection initiative, developing Bid Density Optimization systems, and building [the Petitioner's] Dynamic Ad Policy Engine. This work provides exposure to sophisticated fraud patterns at scale, given that [ the Petitioner] is serving over 90 million U.S. households, and has enabled [the Beneficiary] to develop expertise that informs his broader fraud prevention methodology. Work performed per this employment utilizes [ the Petitioner's] resources during standard business hours. [The Beneficiary's] continuing work at [the Petitioner] is therefore a critical component in continuing his proposed endeavor.
[The Beneficiary's] initiative to build a comprehensive fraud prevention ecosystem serving as public infrastructure for the U.S. digital economy represents an extension of the proposed endeavor to the benefit ofthe U.S. economy as a whole.
Public Benefit Track (Independent): [The Beneficiary's] independent activity translates this expertise into open-source public infrastructure. This track encompasses three categories of activities:
- Open-Source Platform Development: [The Beneficiary] develops and maintains his online platform,! Iand related open-source tools, including fraud detection capabilities, machine learning model improvements, and documentation. This platform is licensed under the MIT open-source license and provides free tools accessible to small and medium-sized businesses-a market segment distinct from [the Petitioner's] Connected TV focus.
- Academic Research Contributions: As an extension of these large-scale data analysis tools, [the Beneficiary] engages in academic partnerships with universities, provides peer review for academic journals, performs dataset development research, and authors scholarly publications.
- Standards and Regulatory Engagement: [The Beneficiary] participates in data science industry standards bodies and monitoring of regulatory developments.
As discussed below, we conclude the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar.
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. Dhanasar, 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. We agree with USCIS' determination that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has substantial merit.
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. at 889. This consideration may include whether the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. USCIS determined the Petitioner did not establish the potential prospective impact of the Beneficiary's proposed work. 4 On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's development of enterprise track anti-fraud technology for his employer stands "to generate impact at the national level." While the Petitioner presented information on the scope of its business operations, it has not offered sufficient evidence showing that the Beneficiary's proposed work for the company stands to impact the field of AI or the digital advertising industry beyond his projects for the Petitioner. Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint such as the Petitioner, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a beneficiary's endeavor has national importance. At issue is whether a petitioner can demonstrate that the beneficiary's own individual endeavor stands to have broader implications, such as for a field, a region, or the public at large. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, F.5(D)(3), https:// www.uscis.gov/policy-manual.
The Petitioner's documentation included the National Science and Technology Council's "Critical and Emerging Technologies List Update." The Petitioner indicated that this report identifies AI as "integral to U.S. national security and the economy." USCIS recognizes the importance of progress in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields and the essential role that individuals with advanced STEM degrees have in fostering such progress. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/. While the Beneficiary's engagement in work related to a critical and emerging technology is a positive consideration, the Petitioner must still demonstrate that the Beneficiary's specific proposed endeavor has national importance.
The Petitioner also presented information on federal initiatives aimed at uncovering digital advertising fraud, modernizing payments to and from the U.S. Treasury, tracking AI and mitigating its risk of consumer harm, preventing financial fraud and scams, ensuring digital marketing providers comply with federal consumer financial protection law, and fonding AI to farther U.S. national security objectives. While the Petitioner claims that these articles support the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor, the determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of one's field or industry in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign 4 USCIS' decision stated that the Petitioner had not demonstrated "the Beneficiary's individual work towards the development and deployment of AI and ML-driven fraud detection frameworks would have an impact at a level ofnational imp01tance." p. 5 national proposes to undertake."Proposed endeavor too vague Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, none of the articles mention the Beneficiary or his planned projects, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor to develop and deploy AI and ML-driven advertising fraud detection frameworks.
In addition, the Petitioner provided letters of support from B-Y-, B-L-, E-C-M-, V-V-, G-B-, C-G-, and A-K-G- discussing the Beneficiary's digital advertising analytics capabilities and data science experience.5 For example, B-Y- asserted that the Beneficiary "is an exceptional data scientist with extensive experience in ML, AI, and digital advertising analytics" and that "[h ]is deep understanding ofAI-driven analytics, predictive modeling, and anomaly detection has positioned him as a recognized expert in the intersection of data science and digital advertising." Likewise, V-V- stated that the Beneficiary "demonstrated exceptional aptitude in courses directly relevant to his current work in AIdriven fraud detection" and that "[ t ]he rigorous curriculum he completed provided him with the precise technical foundation and marketing ecosystem knowledge needed to address the complex challenges of digital advertising fraud." The Beneficiary's education, skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field relate to the second prong ofthe Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong.
Regarding the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor's prospective impact, B-L- wrote:
I firmly believe that AI-driven fraud prevention represents work of substantial national importance. [The Beneficiary's] proposed endeavor addresses a critical vulnerability in our digital economy that threatens both business integrity and national economic security. His approach to developing scalable, adaptive fraud detection models and promoting collaborative, industry-wide solutions would make a significant contribution to maintaining America's leadership in digital advertising technology.
In addition, C-G- stated:
The work [the Beneficiary] proposes to advance addresses a critical national need.
Digital advertising fraud costs U.S. businesses billions annually, undermining the integrity of the digital economy and diverting funds from legitimate businesses to criminal enterprises. At [the Petitioner], we have witnessed firsthand how [the Beneficiary's] innovations have protected both our company and our advertising partners from significant financial losses, directly contributing to making our platform more transparent, efficient, and secure with benefits that extend to thousands of advertisers and millions of consumers.
I firmly believe that [the Beneficiary's] proposed endeavor will have substantial national importance by reducing economic losses from digital ad fraud estimated to cost U.S. businesses up to $35 billion annually, strengthening national cybersecurity by disrupting financial flows to criminal networks, and creating a more level playing field for businesses of all sizes to compete in the digital marketplace.
While the Beneficiary's enterprise-scale advertising fraud detection initiatives offer benefits for the Petitioner and his open-source I Iplatform supports its subscribers, the Petitioner has not provided evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary's proposed work would affect his industry or field at a level indicative of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.No broader implications shown The letters from B-Y-, B-L-, E-C-M-, V-V-, G-B-, C-G-, and A-K-G- do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Beneficiary's specific proposed work offers broader implications in his field or industry or substantial positive economic effects for our nation that rise to the level of national importance.Job creation or economic claims unsupported With respect to the prospective impact ofthe Beneficiary's academic research partnerships relating to his public benefit track, A-K-G- indicated:
My laboratory was conducting large-scale fecundity assays to measure reproductive output in the laboratory organism Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans), a microscopic roundworm . . . . We needed to develop an automated method for analyzing the images, but it was a challenging problem for which our lab and others in the field lacked the expertise.
Critically, [the Beneficiary] undertook this substantial collaboration while simultaneously fulfilling his full-time employment obligations atl IInc. Over eight months, he pursued meaningful scientific contributions while maintammg professional responsibilities. This success provides direct evidence of his ability to advance his field ofendeavor and to further the national interest as a whole, rather than being limited to the scope of any single employer's interests.
The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated how the Beneficiary's participation in biology research involving the reproductive output of roundworms shows that his proposed endeavor to "develop and deploy open-source, AI and ML-driven ad fraud detection frameworks" has national importance. If the evidence of record demonstrates that a beneficiary's proposed endeavor has the significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, or to contribute to the advancement of a valuable technology or field of study, it may rise to the level of national importance. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, F.5(D)(3) (which provides examples of proposed endeavors that may rise to the level of national importance). Routine, nominal, or commonplace improvements in a given discipline do not meet the national importance standard under the Dhanasar framework. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90 (giving examples indicating that a qualifying endeavor should have "national or even global implications within a particular field" or "substantial positive economic effects."). These examples reinforce that the proposed work should "impact the field ... more broadly" (Id. at 893) and have "broader implications" (Id. at 889). While we do not diminish the value ofthe Beneficiary's academic research, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his research projects stand to broadly affect the digital advertising industry or the data science or AI fields. The Petitioner contends on appeal that "the continued upward growth trajectory ofrecognition of the significance of the Beneficiary's endeavor is evidenced by the growing number of citations to his work" and that the citation metrics he presented show that his work "will continue to achieve a level p. 7 of national importance."6 The first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on the proposed endeavor; not on the Beneficiary's prior research work or any interest in his published findings.No interest from users, customers or investors The national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands separate and apart from his research skills and the interest ofrelevant entities or individuals in his work. Id. at 890. Further, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the Beneficiary's two most-cited articles relate to his proposed endeavor to "develop and deploy open-source, AI and ML-driven advertising fraud detection frameworks."
The Petitioner's response to the RFE included "Expert Opinion Letter(s)" from M-P-M- and D-L-, in support ofthe Beneficiary's national interest waiver. M-P-M- asserted that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has a national impact and substantial positive economic benefits, impacts national initiatives, and will enhance individual and societal welfare. For example, M-P-M- indicated that the Beneficiary's "advanced technologies can be applied to indust ovemance be ond technical systems" and that "[h ]is upcoming partnerships with I I, and====================================-.~c-a....,n provide something completely new, like industry-wide, legally binding standards for AI-based fraud detection." The Petitioner, however, has not shown that the Beneficiary's specific proposed work stands to affect industry governance in meaningful ways, or to otherwise offer broader implications in his field at a level indicative of national importance. M-P-M-'s letter also pointed to the value of having robust anti-fraud initiatives in the digital advertising industry, but the issue here is not the importance of the Petitioner's field or industry in general.Support letters generic or unsupported Rather, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. While M-P-M-'s advisory opinion cites to publicly available information from sources such as Juniper Research, TAG, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and Integral Ad Science to establish the importance of digital advertising fraud mitigation strategies, his letter does not demonstrate how the Beneficiary's day-today data science work for the Petitioner and his other proposed activities rise to a level of national importance.
Regarding the Beneficiary's I !platform and its goal of helping companies protect against digital advertising fraud and related economic losses, the December 2025 letter from D-L- stated: [The Beneficiary'sll I directly addresses this market failure through opensource provision of fraud detection capabilities at zero cost. His documented results provide a solid basis for economic extrapolation. The platform currently protects 82 businesses with verified savings of $128,000 over 2 years-approximately $1,561 per business annually in recovered advertising spent. Critically, this figure represents documented minimum savings; actual fraud prevented but undetected would increase this estimate substantially. Adoption of his technology by businesses across the U.S. is an achievement and demonstrates that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.
Scaling these demonstrated results provides insight into potential national economic impact. If similar open-source fraud detection tools achieved adoption by 5% of U.S.
small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (approximately 1.6 million businesses), the direct annual savings would approach $2.5 billion. At 10% adoption with improved detection effectiveness through continued development, recoverable advertising expenditure would exceed $6 billion annually. These funds would be redirected from fraudulent actors - many of which operate outside the United States' jurisdiction-back into productive domestic U.S. economic activity, supporting employment, business investment, and tax revenues.
The economic multiplier effects of fraud prevention extend beyond direct savings ....
Each dollar recovered from fraud generates approximately $1.50 to $2.00 in broader economic activity through these multiplier effects. Thus, $6 billion in direct fraud prevention could generate $9 to $12 billion in total economic impact.
As it relates to I brospective impact, the Petitioner contends on appeal that "the internet is international in scope, such that there is no 'immediate vicinity' in the context of a business with a website" and that "[e]ach of the 82 adopters is a U.S. business with international exposure." The Petitioner indicates that in the intervening period after the RFE, the number ofl lusers "has increased to over 95" and that "[t]his expansion of adoption of the Beneficiary's open-source tool" shows that "the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has national impact and benefit."7 While the Beneficiary'sI platform was developed in 2023 and has been active for multiple years, the record reflects that only 82 companies had subscribed to the platform as of December 2025 and 96 companies as of March 2026. The Petitioner has not shown that this level of participation in his platform indicates that it will affect the digital advertising industry in a meaningful way, or that it otherwise offers broader implications in his field at a level indicative of national importance. In addition, the Petitioner asserts that D-L-'s "formal economic analysis" shows that the Beneficiary's I !platform will generate billions of dollars in both annual savinf and broader economic activity. The Petitioner, however, has not addressed how the Beneficiary's Iplatform will increase its subscribership from 82 ~ 96 companies to "5% ofU.S. small and medium-sized enterprises (approximately 1.6 million businesses "or to "10% adoption" as indicated in D-L-'s economic impact extrapolation. D-L-'s scaling of.________,adoption rate to 5% or 10% of U.S. SMEs is not supported by details showing how the platform will generate such adoption rates or an explanation of how adding thousands of additional U.S. SME users will be achieved. Accordingly, D-L-'s economic impact analysis attributing billions of dollars in U.S. annual savings to the Beneficiary's advertising fraud prevention platform is not persuasive. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires the evidence demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is probably true, where the determination oftruth is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, truth is to be determined not by the quantity ofevidence alone but by its quality. Id. Here, the lack of supporting details and evidence detracts from the credibility and probative value of the Petitioner and D-L-'s claims regarding I Iprojected number of eventual users and the resulting U.S. economic impact.
To evaluate whether the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. While the Beneficiary intends to develop and deploy open-source, AI and ML-driven advertising fraud detection frameworks, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893 . Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's specific proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employer and his other proposed projects to impact the fields of AI and data science, the digital advertising industry, national security, federal initiatives, societal welfare, or U.S. technological interests more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor the Beneficiary proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without sufficient credible evidence to corroborate the Petitioner's claims regarding the projected U.S. economic impact attributable to the Beneficiary's proposed work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance.
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility for a national interest waiver. As this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not reach, and therefore reserve, determination of the Beneficiary's eligibility under the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 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).
Conclusion
As the Beneficiary has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
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 p. 10 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.