The Petitioner, a computer scientist and researcher, 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 petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a 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 ofthe 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 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.
Ifa 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 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature).
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
The petitioner proposes to develop "optimization algorithms with solid theoretical guarantees to facilitate efficient computations of large-scale structured modeling problems, including robust optimization in machine learning." SCOPS found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 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. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar. In denying the petition, SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner has not established his prorosedl endeavor's national importance or the national implications of working as a research scientist at _______ ___. SCOPS also determined the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his endeavor's impact stands to sufficiently extend beyond~and its clients to impact the software development or computer science field. Although SCOPS considered the Petitioner's research endeavor as well as his plans to continue working fore=] as a research scientist, SCOPS concluded that the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific work in the endeavor would prospectively impact the field in a manner that rises to the level of national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner states that he has "presented considerable evidence ofthe national importance of [his] proposed endeavor, including evidence of the United States' explicit prioritization of advances in artificial intelligence technologies, including machine learning." The Petitioner farther contends that his evidence demonstrates that the "federal government has invested considerable resources into artificial intelligence research .. .largely focused on machine learning." Accordingly, he argues that his endeavor "directly aligns with the goals ofthe United States government and helps cement national leadership in artificial intelligence." He also contends that his work directly addresses challenges to electricity demand "through the development of more efficient machine learning technologies that reduce power consumption." The Petitioner claims SCOPS misidentified his endeavor and "falsely" conflated it with his specific employment. He clarifies that his endeavor is to "continue his research using advanced mathematical techniques to develop state-of-the-art optimization algorithms with solid theoretical guarantees in order to facilitate efficient computations of large-scale structured modeling problems, including robust optimization in machine learning." He also affirms his intentions to publish "scientific papers and open-sourcing code implementations to bring broader impact to the optimization community."
The Petitioner also argues, citing to Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1226 (E.D. Mich. 1994), that SCOPS' decision "has not folly engaged with the evidence on the record." With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that they meet each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what they claim is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Id. at 376. To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance standard, 2 The Petitioner earned a master's degree in computer science from~I -----~Iin 2019. p. 3 we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. The court in Buletini did not reject the concept of examining the quality of the evidence presented to determine whether it establishes a petitioner's eligibility, nor does it suggest that USCIS abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim a petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. See, e.g., Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021).
At the time offiling the petition, the Petitioner explained that he was pursuing his Doctor ofPhilosophy (Ph.D.) in computer science at the I r and conducting research in "investigating a high-performance and arallelizable waveform deconvolution algorithm for neutrino detection, in collaboration with th The Petitioner stated that he began working forc=]as a research scientist in August 2024. At . ..___....,.the Petitioner stated that his work involves developing efficient new optimizatiol algorithms for large-scale model training in the domain of modem recommendation systems within In his initial petition, the Petitioner stated that he plans to "develop optimization algorithms with solid theoretical guarantees to facilitate efficient computations of large-scale structured modeling problems, including robust optimization in machine learning." Specifically, he will "develop efficient new optimization algorithms for largescale model training in the domain of modem recommendation systems and publish original computer science research in peer-reviewed journals and conference papers." The Petitioner asserts that although his research endeavor is distinct from his current employment, he provided information about his position "to confirm his commitment and capacity to advance his proposed endeavor." At the same time, the Petitioner indicates that he intends to continue his employment with Meta "for the foreseeable future."
The Petitioner argues that his endeavor is nationally important because of its substantial positive economic effects for the country. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the [petitioner] proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the 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. Here, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain or provide adequate evidence to demonstrate that his specific research endeavor, developing optimization algorithms for large-scale model training in the domain of modem recommendation systems, has had, or is likely to have impact that will rise to the level of national importance.
A letter from a~senior software engineer manager discusses the critical role that the Petitioner played in designing new machine learning optimization and modelling technologies. He explains that 3 The Petitioner, in his response to SCOPS' request for evidence, indicated that he obtained his Ph.D. in May 2025 from th~ I p. 4 the Petitioner's work on "recommendation engine optimization can reach beyondI Ithrough research paper publications top tier machine learning conferences, such as the International Conference on Machine Leaming (ICML), bringing crucial scientific advancement of national significance to the broader audience." Additionally, that the Petitioner's "industrial implementations ofhis optimization techniques" can bring "greater benefits to the scientific communities and industries in the United States." We acknowledge the importance ofthese goals and the fields implicated by the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. However, the letter does not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's specific projects atc=J stand to have an impact that extends beyond the company and its clients to influence the field of computer science or other related fields and industries.Past record does not show influence or success In addition, the~ does not detail which aspect of the Petitioner's work is intended for dissemination outside of L_J While the Petitioner working as a research scientist for~with a focus on artificial intelligence and machine learning optimization may demonstrate the substantial merit ofthe proposed endeavor, it does not support or demonstrate its prospective potential impact nationally, or even globally, or through broader implications rising to a level of national importance.No broader implications shown
The Petitioner references expert letters discussing the Petitioner's past research and his endeavor's national importance. 4 The experts state that the Petitioner's algorithm provides a tangible solution, large-scale machine learning applications, and promotes the nation's economic digital transformation and competitiveness on a global scale. While these letters are supportive in tone and positive factors, they do not offer sufficient, detailed, and concrete examples of how the Petitioner's research has been adopted, applied in practical settings, or changed the course ofother research efforts. The authors also do not provide sufficient evidence that the Petitioner's research has the potential for broad and measurable implications for the country beyond impacting □and its clients. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.
As a comparison, the pet1t10ner in Dhanasar demonstrated that he conducted research and development in the field of air and space propulsion, more specifically, hypersonic propulsion systems involving speeds above Mach 5, and he had developed a novel method for accurately calculating hypersonic airflow. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 891-92. In addition, he submitted evidence reflecting that he would continue his research into designing and developing propulsion systems in nano-satellites, rocket-propelled ballistic missiles, and single-stage-to-orbit vehicles and substantial supporting evidence to support how his continued research would assist the United States in maintaining its advantage over other nations in hypersonic flight, including supporting documentation reflecting his receipt of funding from a government entity for his research. Id.
The Petitioner argues that USCIS has acknowledged the significance of progress in fields focused on critical and emerging technologies. He maintains that his endeavor has applications in the advancement of machine learning and deep learning, and that his research is relevant to promoting the development of artificial intelligence. As previously mentioned, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 4 The record also includes the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, academic transcripts, peer-reviewed journal articles, Google Scholar citation record, letters of support, and industry reports and articles. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one.
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his undertaking has implications beyond his employer and its clients to impact the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. Furthermore, alignment with general national goals, in and of itself: does not necessarily establish that the Petitioner's endeavor rises to the level of national importance.Proposed endeavor too vague In this case, the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in his field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive economic effects for the country that rise to the level ofnational importance.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Moreover, while USCIS recognizes specific evidentiary considerations relating to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees and fields, "the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(2). The Petitioner maintains that his endeavor involves research in fields focused on critical and emerging technologies, in particular artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies. We recognize the overall value of the technology industry, attracting qualified professionals in related careers, and strengthening our nation's technology, particularly technology recognized as critical and emerging, but their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular. See id. Moreover, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his specific undertaking of working as a research scientist for Meta and conducting research on developing optimization algorithms to facilitate modeling problems stands to have an impact beyond his employer and clients, or that his proposed research work would otherwise have broader implications for his field.
C. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 ofL-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
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor, and he does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer and labor certification requirements in the national interest 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 p. 6 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.