The Petitioner, a computer and information research scientist who describes himself as a "machine learning engineer," 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).
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree. However, the Director concluded that the record does not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement, 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 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 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.
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 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 the proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. However, for the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id.
Initially, the Petitioner described the endeavor as a "plan to continue pursuing my proposed endeavor as a machine learning engineer at I I The Petitioner elaborated that his endeavor "will include developing AI models that protect the content safety forl lvideos, investigating cutting-edge AI systems, and improving their robustness and fairness to address AI safety." The Petitioner "emphasize[d] that my proposed endeavor is distinct from my position of employment," although he did not indicate that he intends to work for any particular employer other than including as an independent contractor, or that his endeavor would entail researching or developing computer science for applications other than I I and its content, lessening the Petitioner's attempt to distinguish between his endeavor and his continuing employment. In relevant part, the Petitioner also submitted copies of publications that provide generalized information regarding computer science, artificial intelligence, and social media.
The Director concluded, "The evidence is sufficient to establish that [the Petitioner's] proposed endeavor has substantial merit." However, the Director noted, 'The record does not show that [the Petitioner's] proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond [his] company, future clientele, or business partnership to impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance." The Director also observed that the record does not establish "that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the proposed endeavor would reach a level of 'substantial positive economic effects' contemplated by Dhanasar," such as through "projected U.S. economic impact or job creation."Job creation or economic claims unsupported See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Therefore, the Director concluded that the record does not satisfy the first Dhanasar prong. See id. The Director further determined that the record does not satisfy the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See id. On appeal, the Petitioner characterizes the Director's decision as having misapplied USCIS Policy Manual guidance regarding science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, and that the Director "fail[ ed] to acknowledge the direct relevance of [his] work to national priorities outlined in the 2023 Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence." The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that publications in the record providing generalized information regarding computer science, artificial intelligence, and social media demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has national importance.Proposed endeavor too vague Additionally, the Petitioner references his updated personal statement submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE).
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the [individual] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or those with "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90.
We first note that the USCIS Policy Manual does not provide guidance regarding STEM-related endeavors contrary to the Director's decision. In relevant part, the USCIS Policy Manual instructs that, with respect to the first Dhanasar prong, as in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Again, to determine whether a proposed endeavor may have national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the [individual] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Thus, whether an industry, field, or profession-STEM-related or otherwise-is important is a separate analysis from whether any particular endeavor within such an industry, field, or profession is nationally important. Relatedly, although the Petitioner's field of artificial intelligence research and development may, as the Petitioner asserts on appeal, be relevant to "national priorities outlined in the 2023 Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence," whether a field may be relevant to a national priority is a separate analysis from whether any particular endeavor within such a field is nationally important. The question in all cases-whether STEM-related or otherwise-is whether the specific proposed endeavor may have national or even global implications within a particular field; significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area; or other indicia of national importance. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established on appeal that the Director misapplied USCIS Policy Manual guidance or improperly "fail[ ed] to acknowledge the direct relevance of [his] work to national priorities" in a way that would affect the determination of whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance. Next, contrary to the Petitioner's assertions on appeal, none ofthe publications in the record providing generalized information regarding computer science, artificial intelligence, and social media demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has national importance. Those publications, bearing titles such as 'The 13 Most Advanced Countries in Artificial Intelligence," "What are the Challenges of Content Moderation," "The Role of AI in Content Analysis," and "Social Media Usage in the United States - Statistics & Facts," do not discuss the Petitioner and the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake-rather than the industry, field, or profession in general-and how the specific endeavor may have national importance. Therefore, the publications in the record providing generalized information do not establish how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor may have national importance as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id.
We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted an updated personal statement in response to the Director's RFE, which he references on appeal. However, the updated personal statement, along with the remainder of the record, discusses computer science, artificial intelligence, and social media in generalities, rather than providing probative, corroborating evidence regarding how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national importance. For example, neither the updated personal statement nor the remainder ofthe record establish how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications within the field of artificial intelligence, or any other field, beyond benefitting his current employer, its content, and its users. See id. As another example, neither the updated personal statement nor the remainder of the record establish how the Petitioner's research and development for his current employer may have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have other substantial positive economic effects, beyond benefitting his employer.Benefits limited to an employer or its clients See id.
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.