The Petitioner, a software engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member ofthe 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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that be 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 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) ofthe 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
We agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner qualifies as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree. The record indicates that the Petitioner has a master's degree in computer science from the I I. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest.
Since earning his master's degree in 2018, the Petitioner worked as a software engineer atl,_____. from February 2019 to November 2021, at,__ ______
~from November 2021 to May 2023, and at,___________, from June 2023 to present. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is "developing secure, scalable, and efficient software systems for the U.S. healthcare and public service sectors" and "[ enhancing] Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems by ensuring seamless interoperability across providers." The Petitioner claimed that his endeavor "aligns with national priorities to enhance public health, improve system efficiency, and bolster cybersecurity" and "advance patient care, protect sensitive data, and fortify the resilience of the U.S. healthcare infrastructure."
SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance. Furthermore, SCOPS determined that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his endeavor, but the record does not establish 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.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
A. Whether the Proposed Endeavor Has Substantial Merit and National Importance Upon reviewing the record, we conclude that the Petitioner's endeavor does not have national importance under the Dhanasar's first prong. To evaluate whether the proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we focus on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake and look to evidence documenting its "potential prospective impact." Id.
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that SCOPS misapplied the national importance standard from Dhanasar by insisting that the endeavor has "a multi-state or a nation wide impact." In addition, the Petitioner claims that SCOPS overlooked probative evidence showing how his endeavor "aligns with federal and state healthcare initiatives and legislation designed to improve health IT nationwide" and recommendation letters that "uniformly tie the Petitioner's future endeavors to nationally important outcomes."
Although we agree with the Petitioner that "even work focused in one region can have broader fieldwide significance" according to Dhanasar, we do not find that this is a material error by SCOPS. The Petitioner has never claimed that his endeavor will be limited to a region. In fact, the Petitioner has p. 3 consistently asserted that his endeavor's impact will be nationwide and even global. For example, the Petitioner stated that his technologies or innovations "directly support federal efforts to modernize healthcare IT and promote interoperability nationwide" and the endeavor's "focus on cybersecurity and technological innovation will reinforce U.S. leadership in healthcare technology on a global scale." Therefore, SCOPS properly looked for evidence showing the endeavor's nationwide impact but found that the record did not sufficiently support the Petitioner's claims.
The Petitioner indicated the key steps in his methodology for enhancing healthcare technology include: "selecting an appropriate technology stack based on project scope, scalability, interoperability, and compliance needs"; "conducting impact analyses, precise time estimations, and integration planning with external systems"; and "overseeing User Acceptance Testing (UAT) and Quality Assurance (QA) processes to ensure high-quality outcomes." The Petitioner also stated that his innovative contributions include "integration of standards, real-time data exchange, and cybersecurity emphasis." However, the Petitioner's proposed activities in his professional plan entail typical work of a software engineer for a technology company. While individual employer or company may benefit from his activities, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient details or corroborating evidence for how this individual benefit rises to the level of national importance or will impact the field more broadly, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[ a ]n 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.
The Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter from a professor of information systems (IT) management at ~------~· The letter discusses the Petitioner's skills and abilities as a software engineer and claims that the Petitioner has undertaken "high-impact projects across various industries, including state governments" which resulted in improved patient portal and accessibility of medical records. However, the evidence in the record does not corroborate that the Petitioner had any direct involvement in software innovations beyond these specific projects and clients to which he was assigned by his employers. Although the expert letter states that the Petitioner "will continue to study and improve on a variety of cutting-edge technologies" that can potentially improve in the healthcare industry's IT systems, it does not elaborate on what these "cutting-edge technologies" are and how the Petitioner intends to distribute to "many healthcare employers" so that the endeavor's impact would extend beyond companies that he will serve. As a matter ofdiscretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory but will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Matter ofCaron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988).
We also reviewed the Petitioner's letters of recommendation from his former work colleagues. The authors ofthe letters praise the Petitioner's abilities as a software engineer, successful handling ofpast projects, and the personal attributes that make him an asset to the workplace. While the recommendation letters evidence the high regard for the Petitioner and his work, they do not discuss the prospective impact ofhis endeavor other than in general terms, stating that "his future contributions are poised to make an even broader impact" or that he would "make an invaluable contribution to the United States."No broader implications shown However, such claims are not adequately supported by the record. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 24 I&N Dec. at 376.
The Petitioner provided various articles and reports on challenges facing healthcare technology, high cost of data breach and internet crime, projected growth of software developers, and artificial intelligence's role in the healthcare industry. The Petitioner also asserted that the strategic plan and initiatives of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services directly address the importance of the Petitioner's endeavor as his projects "implement solutions that align with evolving federal mandates on health IT interoperability, patient privacy, and data transparency." We acknowledge that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit based on these articles but merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, we look to the specific endeavor, including any innovative technologies and methodologies that the Petitioner claimed to have developed or will contribute to the field. However, these industry articles only provide general background and information about the field and its importance but do not specifically mention the Petitioner's endeavor or solutions that would impact the broad governmental initiatives.Proposed endeavor too vague
Further, the Petitioner has not asserted on appeal and the record does not establish that his endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area.Job creation or economic claims unsupported See Dhanasar at 890. Therefore, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation to prove the prospective impact that rises to the level ofnational importance as required by the first prong ofDhanasar.
B. Whether the Petitioner Is Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and therefore withdraw SCOPS' finding on the second prong.
While the first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on the proposed endeavor and whether it has substantial merit and national importance, the second prong shifts the focus to the individual petitioner and whether they are well-positioned to advance it. To determine whether an individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to: their 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.
We first consider the factors regarding the Petitioner's education, skills, and knowledge. At the time of filing, the Petitioner had a master's degree in computer science and worked as a software engineer for about five years. We consider an advanced degree in a STEM field tied to the proposed endeavor and related to work furthering a critical and emerging technology a positive factor to be considered along with other evidence in assessing the second prong. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)( 4), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual.
However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated a record of success in his field. The Petitioner's skills and knowledge in healthcare technology are limited to his experience working as a software engineer at I I for about two years. We have also considered the statements of support submitted by the Petitioner, including the expert opinion letter and recommendation letters as discussed above, but concluded that these letters do not sufficiently explain p. 5 how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field or otherwise constitute a record of success beyond having a favorable employment history. Furthermore, the Petitioner does not claim that he received high number of citations for his journal publication, or that the invitations for his peer review services are directly tied to his innovations or solutions in the field. Although the Petitioner provided abstracts of his publication and citation record, his Google Scholar profile indicates that one article received two citations since its publication in 2016 and more recent articles did not receive any citations.Citation record not persuasive Additionally, the articles do not discuss topics relevant to his proposed endeavor, such as advancing healthcare technology, improving the healthcare infrastructure, or addressing cybersecurity risks in the healthcare industry.
Regarding the petitioner's model or plan for future activities and any progress toward achieving the proposed endeavor, we also similarly conclude that the evidence in the record does not weigh in favor of demonstrating that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the endeavor. In describing the future activity, the Petitioner indicated that his plan is to "collaborate with multiple healthcare employers," "[work] with diverse teams across the industry," and make "partnerships." But at the same time, he indicates that "I will undertake my proposed endeavor through my current employer" and "the collaborative process I plan to pursue . . . may eventually lead me to seek new opportunities if necessary." It is unclear how he plans to form partnerships with multiple healthcare employers while working for his current employer and what other new opportunities that he is considering. Additionally, the record does not demonstrate interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals.No interest from users, customers or investors Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The record contains printouts of messages he had received from recruiters regarding software engineer positions at various technology companies or IT consulting companies, but the Petitioner has not explained how these are relevant to his proposed endeavor or his plans to develop and improve healthcare technology and infrastructure. By contrast, in Dhanasar, we noted that the petitioner submitted expert letters from individuals holding senior positions in academia, government, and industry that described the petitioner's specific area of research and had received "consistent" government fonding of research projects in which he played a "significant" role, specifically that he initiated or was the primary award contact on several fonded grant proposals. Id. at 893. Here, the Petitioner has not shown a similar level of interest from the relevant parties in the field.
Although the Petitioner appears to be an educated and skilled software engineer, the record does not demonstrate sufficient progress, models or plans for his future activities, or interest in his work from relevant parties, to show that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, which is to broadly impact the healthcare technology for the nation, as he claimed. We therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not met the second prong ofDhanasar.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first and second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. As the identified reasons for dismissal are dis positive of the appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar's third prong. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding p. 6 that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision).
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 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.