The Petitioner, a data scientist, 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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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 ofChristo'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.
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id.
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) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884,889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. p. 2 Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) 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.
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
Analysts
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to continue his work as a data scientist both as an entrepreneur and as an employee of a healthcare technology company. SCOPS determined that the Petitioner established his eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 2 However, SCOPS further concluded that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that SCOPS erred in this determination. We conclude that the record does not establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance and therefore he is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
A. The Record Establishes the Proposed Endeavor Has Substantial Merit
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Id. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. As stated above, the Petitioner's proposed erdeavor is to continue bi& work as a dra scientist both as an entrepreneur, through his company _________________. and as an employee of the healthcare technology compan;l ] He asserts thatl Iwill help small businesses grow nationwide by providing predictive analytics services. He also states that he will provide training and career development services to help address the digital skills gap in the U.S. labor market. In addition, as an employee ot1 the Petitioner contends he will improve personalized healthcare, monitor disease outbreaks, and advance the quality of clinical trials to further U.S. competitiveness in the field of medicine. The record includes industry reports and articles about data science and its role in healthcare, issues facing clinical trials, the impact ofAI on small businesses, and the importance of progress in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. We conclude the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit.
I
B. The Record Does Not Establish the Proposed Endeavor is of National Importance In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. SCOPS determined that the Petitioner did not establish the broader 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). 2 The Petitioner is a data scientist The ryord contains a diploma as evidence a master of science degree in data science from thel SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and we agree. p. 3 implications of his proposed endeavor and therefore he did not establish its national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts, in part, that he "provided overwhelming evidence to show that his proposed endeavor has. . . national importance. . . ." Upon review, we too conclude that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the standard for national importance set forth in the Dhanasar framework.
The first part of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to prov,de data aua]vtj1 solutions to small businesses as part of his company J I In addition,.__ ______, will provide career development and coaching to other STEM professionals in AI, machine learning, and data analytics. The second part ofthe Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to continue his employment as senior manager of program management for I Iusing data science to further their work in the healthcare technology sector. Dhanasar states that an undertaking may have national importance because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner contends thatl Iwill support small businesses in varying industries and address a digital skills gap by providing training and career development assistance. He asserts that this will result in the growth of small businesses, the U.S. economy, and the next generation of STEM professionals. In addition, based on his employment withl Ihe contends his endeavor will improve personalized health care, monitor disease outbreaks, and advance the quality of clinical trials; improving U.S. competitiveness in the field of medicine. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Here, the evidence in the record does not support these assertions.
The Petitioner contends that the record establishes the national importance of his proposed endeavor, in part, because it aligns with government initiatives. He provides evidence of the U.S. government's emphasis on the advancement of AI, articles about the use of AI in small businesses, and the importance of small businesses to the U.S. economy. In addition, he includes information on data science and its importance in healthcare and clinical trials. While this evidence supports the Petitioner's statements about government support for the advancement of AI and its impact on small businesses; along with data science and its role in healthcare and the furtherance of clinical trials, the reports and articles in the record do not further the Petitioner's claim of his proposed endeavor's national importance. As stated above, in determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. While we acknowledge the importance of the fields the Petitioner proposes to work in and the merit of the Petitioner's work in these fields; the relevant question is not the importance of the field in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the [Petitioner] proposes to undertake.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's Id. For example, on appeal, the Petitioner provides "America's AI Action Plan" and an article about how this plan will accelerate innovation. While this demonstrates government initiatives in the AI field and its possible impact, it does not further demonstrate the prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. Here, the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry to further establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Without sufficient documentary evidence of the specific proposed endeavor's broader impact on the industry, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.Proposed endeavor too vague
Dhanasar states that 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 890. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor plan states thatl I will have economic impacts beyond its direct revenue growth. He uses an economic multiplier and states that "every $1 in direct revenue creates $1. 70 in indirect and induced economy activity through supply chain effects, employee spending, and related business growth." Further, the Petitioner asserts tha~ Iwill create jobs through its training and career development services as well as its support for small business growth. In addition, he contends that through his work a{ I he will make clinical trials more efficient and cost-effective, which will reduce national healthcare costs. The Petitioner generally states that by supporting small businesses, his proposed endeavor will create jobs in various fields and that his work with small businesses and in the healthcare technology field will generally have a positive economic impact, but the record lacks support for these assertions.Job creation or economic claims unsupported As stated above, a petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Although the record demonstrates small businesses collectively have an economic impact and create jobs when successful, the record lacks specific details on the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and how he intends to create jobs and impact the economy. For example, the Petitioner does not include information about what types ofjobs his specific proposed endeavor will create, where they will be created, how many jobs he will create, how his proposed endeavor will impact the economy, and if it will impact an economically depressed area. Further, the record does not include evidence to support the Petitioner's claims that his proposed endeavor will have direct economic impacts through I lor through his employment withl I Therefore, the record does not establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
The record reflects that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is within the STEM field, and the Petitioner contends this further establishes the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner is a data scientist who uses predictive data analytics, AI, and machine learning. USCIS recognizes the importance of progress in STEM fields and the essential role that individuals with advanced STEM degrees have in fostering such progress. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/. However, "in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance." Id. Here, the record does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will advance a STEM field. Although the record establishes he will work in a STEM field, this alone does not result in national or global implications, and our focus remains on his specific proposed endeavor and its prospective impact. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
Without evidence of the broader implications of his proposed endeavor, we cannot determine its national importance. I lwill provide data analytic solutions to small businesses with three different levels of packages as well as career development and coaching in AI, machine learning, and data analytics. The Petitioner contends that his services "foste[r] growth in the small business ecosystem, as well as in the broader economy" and that his services address a digital skills gap in the labor market. While we acknowledge the merit of this work, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor has broader implications within the field. The proposed endeavor will provide services to small businesses and while this may result in the growth ofhis clients' businesses, this does not establish a broader impact to the field as the Petitioner describes. In Dhanasar, we determined p. 5 that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Similarly, the evidence here shows the services the Petitioner intends to provide to his direct clients, but it does not establish how his services will impact the field more broadly to result in national or global implications.
The Petitioner asserts that his work as a senior manager of program management for I Iwill "improve the quality ofclinical trials, while reducing the time and associated costs, benefitting patient populations throughout the United States." In support of his claims, the Petitioner highlights an article in the record about a project his employer is working on as well as a letter of recommendation from his employer. First, we recognize the value ofthe Petitioner's work as a data scientist in the healthcare technology field; however, as stated above, working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Although we acknowledge that the Petitioner's role and his assigned projects are important to his employer, the issue here is not the broader implications ofthe Petitioner's employer, but rather the potential prospective impact ofthe Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor as a data scientist and his role as senior manager ofprogram management. The Petitioner contends his work will improve personalized healthcare, monitor disease outbreaks, and advance the quality of clinical trials to further U.S. competitiveness in the field of medicine. However, he must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. Evidence o~ !projects that the Petitioner may work on is not evidence ofthe prospective impact of his proposed endeavor.Claims not backed by documents Matter ofDhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. This evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Petitioner as a single employee in this role would affect the industry more broadly to rise to the level of national importance. Further, the letter written by the Petitioner's employer details his skills and his expertise. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that this demonstrates he is recognized in his field ofwork. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's experience in the field; evidence of the Petitioner's past success and experience is relevant to Dhanasar 's prong two analysis, on whether the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the endeavor. It does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as its focus is on the Petitioner's qualifications and not the endeavor's prospective impact. Id. Therefore, evidence of the Petitioner's past experience, even if successful, does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Id. at 890.
While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered the record in its entirety. As the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong ofthe Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the Petitioner is ineligible for a national interest waiver, we need not reach, and therefore reserve, remaining Dhanasar prongs. 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
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. p. 6 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.