The Petitioner, a data scientist, seeks classification a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver ofthe job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See 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.
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal under 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 withdraw SCOPS' decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis.
Law
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act.
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) ofthe Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&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 has both substantial merit and national importance;
I
- The alien is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Analysis
The Petitioner earned a bachelor's degree in computer science from. _______________.
I in 2014. He then came to the United States and earned a doctorate in computer science and software engineering from.__ ______
~in 2020 and undertook postdoctoral! traininf at . In 2022, as an H-lB nonimmigrant, the Petitioner began working for , as a senior scientist in machine learning. 2
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining 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. SCOPS determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the prongs of the Dhanasar national interest test. This determination rests, in significant part, on SCOPS' conclusion that the Petitioner had not adequately described the proposed endeavor.
A. Proposed Endeavor
Counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner's "proposed endeavor is to continue his work in computer science and software engineering research and their practical applications through studies in machine learning & artificial intelligence for drug design/discovery and machine learning algorithms for analyzing large-scale genomic and genetic data, allowing new provisions of laboratory medicines to the science and clinical community."
In a request for evidence (RFE), SCOPS stated: "You did not provide a written statement. The record does not explain why you did not provide a statement. While your attorney asserted that he wrote your proposed endeavor, you did not provide evidence to support the assertion." SCOPS added: "Because you did not provide a proposed endeavor, that impedes USCIS in determining if your unknown proposed endeavor has substantial merit, is of national importance and if you are well positioned to advance it." SCOPS asked the Petitioner to "submit evidence to establish that you have a proposed endeavor."
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated:
In my current work atl I, I lead a machine-learning group focused on advancing artificial intelligence (AI)-driven drug discoveries across different therapeutic modalities, including small molecule drug discovery and antibody drug discovery .
. . . I strongly intend to continue utilizing my extensive and comprehensive experience in computer science and software engineering to support the advancement of AI-driven drug discovery after immigration to the United States.
The Petitioner described his then-current projects and stated:
Moving forward, my small molecule drug discovery research will focus on multiobjective optimization, balancing potency, selectivity, pharmacokinetics, and safety.
By leveraging reinforcement learning and Bayesian optimization, we aim to refine molecular properties across multiple dimensions, ensuring the design of drug candidates that are both effective and developable.
In denying the petition, SCOPS determined: "The petitioner has not submitted a detailed description of the proposed endeavor." SCOPS farther stated: "The unclear nature and the lack of specificity of [the] proposed endeavor impedes USCIS in determining if [the] proposed endeavor" satisfies the requirements of the Dhanasar national interest test.
On appeal, the Petitioner, through counsel, asserts that he "sufficiently and clearly described his proposed endeavor," specifically "to continue conducting computer science and software engineering research to advance artificial intelligence (AI)-driven drug discoveries across different therapeutic modalities, including small molecule drug discovery and antibody drug discovery."
Upon consideration of the record, we agree with the Petitioner that he has provided a sufficiently detailed description ofhis proposed endeavor. In Dhanasar, we summarized that petitioner's proposed endeavor in a single sentence: 'The petitioner proposes to engage in research and development relating to air and space propulsion systems, as well as to teach aerospace engineering." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 891. We then discussed specific examples of previous projects that the petitioner had pursued, stating: "He has developed a validated computational model of a high-speed air-breathing propulsion engine, as well as a novel numerical method for accurately calculating hypersonic air flow. The petitioner intends to continue his research at the university." Id. In the present case, the Petitioner has described his proposed endeavor with a similar level of detail, and the record contains ample evidence of the types of research he has conducted in the past. The Petitioner's stated intention to continue this specified line of research with a named employer is sufficiently detailed for us to discern the nature of the proposed endeavor.
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the alien proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact and broader implications. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An 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 889-890.
In denying the petition, SCOPS concluded: "The petitioner has not submitted a detailed description ofthe proposed endeavor and documentary evidence that demonstrates that the proposed endeavor has p. 4 substantial merit. . . . Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor is of substantial merit."
But, preceding this conclusion, SCOPS quoted three paragraphs of the statement the Petitioner had submitted in response to the RFE. One of the quoted paragraphs reads:
The use of AI in medicinal chemistry has gained significant attention in recent years as a potential means of revolutionizing the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry.
Drug discovery, the process of identifying and developing new medications, is a complex and time-consuming endeavor that traditionally relies on labor-intensive techniques. AI is rapidly transforming drug discovery by leveraging advanced algorithms and machine learning techniques to accelerate the identification and development ofnovel therapeutics. I strongly intend to continue utilizing my extensive and comprehensive experience in computer science and software engineering to support the advancement of AI-driven drug discovery after immigration to the United States.
The Petitioner's initial submission included copies of independent articles citing his work and, more significantly for the first Dhanasar prong, describing how machine learning and other types of AI can play roles in drug design research. One of these articles begins: "Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative technology with significant potential to revolutionize disease understanding and drug design in healthcare. AI serves as a remarkable accelerating tool that bridges the gap between understanding diseases and discovering drugs."
In Dhanasar, we concluded that the petitioner's research into propulsion systems "has substantial merit because it aims to advance scientific knowledge and further national security interests and U.S. competitiveness in the civil space sector." Id. at 892. In the present case, the Petitioner has established the intrinsic merit of contributing to "the advancement of AI-driven drug discovery." We agree with the Petitioner's argument on appeal that he sufficiently described the proposed endeavor to determine that it has substantial merit.
Turning to the question of national importance, SCOPS quoted a passage from Dhanasar regarding the defense applications of the proposed endeavor in that case, and determined that the Petitioner "did not submit evidence of interest in [his] endeavor from U.S. government entities" and did not show the endeavor's "potential prospective impact."No interest from users, customers or investors
U.S. government interest in defense applications is one way, but not the only way, that a petitioner can establish the national importance of a proposed endeavor. In Dhanasar, we stated: "An undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. at 889.
Improvements in drug design fall within the realm of "medical advances." Also, a section of the USCIS Policy Manual discussing "specific evidentiary considerations relating to STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] degrees and fields" includes this example: "a person developing a drug for a pharmaceutical company may establish national importance by demonstrating p. 5 the prospective public health benefits of the drug, instead of solely projecting the profits that will accrue to the employer." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/ policy-manual.
In the present case, the Petitioner works for a particular biotechnology company, but his work relating to drug design is not limited to that company. They key impact of the Petitioner's work is not through the design of any particular drug, but rather by improving the methods available for drug discovery and design. The record shows that he has frequently published his research findings related to methods to improve drug design and discovery, thereby disseminating them beyond his own employer and making his findings available to the field as a whole.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's
The Petitioner, on appeal, observes that "USCIS has considered whether a specific research endeavor directly advances or implicates matters identified as of national importance by federal entities." The Petitioner asserts that "his research endeavors directly advance and implicate matters described as of national importance by" such entities as the Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization. Previously submitted reports and other documents support this assertion.
The Petitioner has established the broader implications of his proposed endeavor, and thereby shown that endeavor to have national importance.Proposed endeavor too vague
C. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
The second Dhanasar prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the alien. To determine whether an alien is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record ofsuccess 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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
The Petitioner asserted that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor because of his "extensive research experience" which has "led to the publication of several peer-reviewed articles" that "have been widely cited" by others in his field.
In the denial notice, SCOPS acknowledged a letter from the Petitioner's supervisor atl l but concluded that "[t]he letter is of diminished probative value due to insufficient explanations and analysis." SCOPS did not specify how the assertions in the letter - mostly details about research projects - were insufficiently explained. The supervisor described some research projects in detail and stated the Petitioner's specific responsibilities within those projects.
SCOPS also stated: "Competent execution of past job duties, even successfully, does not automatically render a person well positioned." In this instance, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is, essentially, his continued employment in the same capacity in which he has already been working. Therefore, his recent employment is directly relevant to his "record of success in related or similar efforts" as contemplated in Dhanasar.
Also pertinent to Dhanasar, citation data for the Petitioner's published work attests to the Petitioner's "progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor," "record of success in related or similar efforts," and "the interest of . . . relevant entities or individuals," because it shows the reception of the Petitioner's work pursuing the same line ofresearch that forms the core of the proposed endeavor. A Google Scholar printout submitted with the petition shows over 100 citations to the Petitioner's published work, and the two most-cited articles were each published less than 14 months before the petition's July 2024 filing date. The citation figures had roughly doubled nine months later, when the Petitioner responded to the RFE. This evidence shows that the Petitioner's recent work has captured the attention of others in the field.
The figures from the RFE response derive from after the petition's filing date, and therefore they do not establish eligibility at the time of filing.Not eligible at the time of filing Nevertheless, they serve to demonstrate continuing interest in, and reliance upon, work that the Petitioner had published before the filing date. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1) requires a petitioner to meet all eligibility requirements at the time of filing and to continue to meet those requirements throughout the adjudication of the petition. The citation figures are relevant when gauging the field's ongoing response to the Petitioner's work. As the Petitioner observes on appeal, in the context of still-higher citation figures, "the rapid increase in citation count further demonstrates his sustained influence in the field."
In the denial notice, SCOPS acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of citation information, but stated that "there is no evidence that distinguishes how many of these citations are independent, as opposed to self-citations." But the Petitioner did submit such evidence, in the form of Google Scholar printouts that list the titles and authors of the citing articles. The printouts show that most of the citations are independent, rather than self-citations by the Petitioner or his co-authors. SCOPS noted the lack of evidence of"U.S. Government interest and investment in [the Petitioner's] research." Here, we must consider the circumstances of the proposed endeavor. The petitioner in Dhanasar was a researcher at a university, where research projects are routinely funded by government grants. The Petitioner in the present case is employed by a large biotech company, which does not appear to rely on government research funding. If the Petitioner's research does not generally rely on government funding, then the absence of evidence of such funding does not detract from how well positioned he is to advance the proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner's current employment is essentially the same as his proposed endeavor. His success in this work, as shown by citations to his published work and endorsed by his immediate supervisor, indicates that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
D. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial
The third Dhanasar prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light ofthe nature ofthe alien's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. p. 7 In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements ofa job offer and thus ofa labor certification. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890-91.
SCOPS offered only limited discussion of the third Dhanasar prong, quoting a paragraph from the precedent decision and stating that the Petitioner's education, experience, and other factors do not compare favorably to those of the petitioner in Dhanasar.
The erroneous conclusions that the Petitioner had not adequately described the proposed endeavor and had not met the first two Dhanasar prongs appear to have influenced SCOPS' briefly stated conclusions regarding the third prong.
Therefore, SCOPS must again review the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in the context of the third Dhanasar prong, taking the above conclusions under consideration.
Conclusion
The record does not support SCOPS' conclusions regarding the first and second Dhanasar prongs. Because the Petitioner has satisfied those two prongs, SCOPS must render a new decision, focusing on the remaining question of whether the Petitioner has established that, on balance, the United States would benefit from waiving the job offer requirement.
ORDER: SCOPS' decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis.