The Petitioner is a researcher who 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 (NIW) 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).
SCOPS denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (petition), concluding that the record established that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying visa classification, but he did not merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103 .3. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
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
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
A. The Proposed Endeavor
The Petitioner initially provided a personal statement reflecting his proposed endeavor would consist ofthe following:
My proposed endeavor is to develop a financial and marketing integrated model that incorporates the direct and indirect effects of company capital, marketing initiatives, and customer relations on small business performance in order to offer novel insights on business performance assessment and contribute to economic development. To progress this endeavor, I will utilize my extensive experience with organizational behavior, marketing, and strategic management. My work will continue to be circulated in the field through my peer-reviewed publications in journals and conference proceedings.
In that same statement, he indicated that he intended to pursue a professorship in the United States listing planned research topics associated with that professorship as assessing the factors influencing the growth of women entrepreneurs in selected African countries and evaluating determinants impacting small businesses in the United States. But that professorship and research topics were not included as pati of his proposed endeavor. Counsel's cover letter largely reflected the same endeavor in which they stated:
[The Petitioner's] proposed endeavor is to develop a financial and marketing integrated model in order to offer novel insights on business performance assessment and contribute to economic development.
As an expe1i in the field of business administration, [the Petitioner's] proposed endeavor is to continue his research on developing a financial and marketing integrated model that incorporates the direct and indirect effects of company capital, marketing initiatives, and customer relations on small business performance in order to offer novel insights on business performance assessment and contribute to economic development.
When responding to SCOPS' request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner's counsel was adamant that his proposed endeavor only included the efforts reflected in the blocked quotes above and in no way was the professorship or the attendant research as a professor supposed to be included as his proposed endeavor. But counsel's statements conflict with the Petitioner's personal statement he offered in the RFE response. The Petitioner's RFE-provided statement expanded the proposed endeavor to include offering insights to U.S. agencies and non-governmental organizations about challenges Ethiopian businesses face. He also listed four areas of research that were not part of developing a financial and marketing integrated model, to offer insights into business performance and economic development and the future works he would publish about that effort. We further observe that in his personal statement the Petitioner submitted in the RFE response, he indicated that he currently works as a customer relationship staff member at a property management company.
Because the basis for the Petitioner's eligibility claim changed to such an extent between the initial filing and his RFE response, we conclude that he made a material change to the petition.Tried to change the endeavor after filing We consider this a material change to the Petitioner's claims as he had not established his eligibility at the time of filing but seemingly sought to remedy a shortcoming in his filing with materially different evidence after SCOPS put him on notice.Not eligible at the time of filing A visa petition may not be approved after a beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Further, a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). If a petitioner is notified ofa deficiency in their claims or evidence, new claims or new material that greatly differs from that previously presented without a sufficient explanation, will not cany sufficient evidentiary weight to meet their burden ofproof.
This ambiguity the Petitioner introduced serves as an independent basis to deny the petition or to dismiss the appeal. And because this leaves open questions as to what activity the Petitioner intends to serve as the focus of his proposed endeavor, it also leaves us facing ambiguities as to what claims we should evaluate, or whether he might make future changes to his endeavor. The Petitioner has not established the substantive nature of his proposed endeavor. Absent that foundational showing, we cannot decide whether he has satisfied any ofDhanasar 's three prongs as it precludes us from making a proper detennination ofwhether: (1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.
The Dhanasar framework cannot be applied to multiple proposed endeavors that have developed differently over the course of the proceedings and that have different effects in the areas that would comprise the Petitioner's areas ofresearch. It is the Petitioner's burden to demonstrate eligibility and as part of that duty he must identify the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. But the Petitioner here has not met that burden, which is comprised ofboth the initial burden ofproduction, as well as the ultimate burden ofpersuasion. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998).
B. We Reserve Our Determination on The Petitioner's Remaining Appellate Claims As we explain above, the Petitioner made a material change to the petition and that prevents us from making a proper determination. Consequently, we will not address, and we reserve the Petitioner's remaining appellate arguments. Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 332 (2022) ( citing INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (finding agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision)); see also M-C-C-, 29 I&N Dec. 401, 405-06 (BIA 2026) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden.
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.S(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.