The Petitioner, a computer scientist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability 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 the Petitioner is eligible for or otherwise merits 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. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that SCOPS made incorrect conclusions of law and statements of fact and abused its discretion in analyzing his petition. The Petitioner maintains that he qualifies for the EB-2 visa classification and meets the first, second, and third prongs of the Dhansar analysis.
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 that they are an advanced 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 ofprogressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id.
Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(32), 1 as well as any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 2 Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. If a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree ofexpertise and will substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and their services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States. 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) 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,3 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
The Petitioner obtained a bachelor's degree in computer engineering from thel.___________. in Canada in 2013 and a master's de ree in electrical engineering and computer science from in 2025. The Petitioner previously worked atOas a.__ ________________..,..________ research assistant from 2023 to 2025 and at.____________.as a research intern in 2025. He intends to work in the United States as a research scientist in the field of computer science. A. EB-2 Visa Classification
As indicated above, the Petitioner must first demonstrate qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the 1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act. 2 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii).
sciences, arts, or business. See section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. The Petitioner claimed eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. But SCOPS did not indicate whether the Petitioner established eligibility for the EB-2 classification.
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he also qualifies for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on his master's degree in electrical engineering and computer science fromc=] However, the record reflects that the Petitioner obtained his master's degree fromD in May 2025 after filing his visa petition in February 2025. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). As such, it appears that the Petitioner is not eligible for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on his master's degree. Here, because SCOPS did not decide whether the Petitioner is eligible for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability, we will reserve this issue for future consideration should the need arise. 4
B. National Interest Waiver
SCOPS determined that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor is of national importance and that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus a labor certification. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest. For the reasons we will discuss below, we determine that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. While we may not address each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one.
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner stated that he intends to "continue [his] investigation into developing state-of-the-art network architecture in order to enhance the connectivity and performance of computer applications[,] like wireless urban networks and high-performance datacenter networks." The Petitioner explained his future research plans, stating that his "future research is organized into three synergistic projects designed to fortify the U.S. technological foundation by enhancing its resilience, performance, and security." He described that the first project "aims to create a decentralized network that provides a resilient backup when centralized infrastructure fails," the second project "transfers the idea of decentralization to datacenter networks, addressing their immense performance and energy consumption challenges," and the third project "continues on the security side of networking, identifying and defending against future wireless threats on the Internet of Things (Io Ts) physical layer to ensure a more resilient and secure digital ecosystem." 4 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). p. 4 On appeal, the Petitioner claims that SCOPS deemed his evidence insufficient by mischaracterizing, diminishing, or ignoring much of the evidence on record, thereby deviating from the proper preponderance of the evidence standard.
Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner must prove eligibility for the requested immigration benefit by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375. Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the evidence must demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is "probably true," where the determination of "truth" is made based on the factual circumstances of each case. Id. at 376. Thus, USCIS must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. Id. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim the petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013); see also Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. US. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 ( 4th Cir. 1993). In this case, we have reviewed each piece of evidence, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, and conclude that the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. An 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. 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. Id. at 890.
The Petitioner asserts that his research on wireless network connectivity and performance is nationally important because "the U.S. wireless industry and its associated infrastructure play a key role in the socioeconomic stability and development of the country, as evidenced by 2020's projected growth of the GDP (gross domestic product) by $825 billion and the job market by 4.5 million jobs." The Petitioner also claims that his proposed endeavor has significant national implications because of "the need to address the issue of wireless infrastructure stability in the United States." He explains that based on "the impact of innovations, such as artificial intelligence, on data center demand in the U.S., which currently requires the creation of approximately 4 7 gigawatts of additional power generation capacity," the nation "requires efficient network architecture design solutions to ensure both economic growth and power security." The Petitioner provided various articles discussing the benefits of wireless communications, data requirements for self-driving cars, the role of data centers in the technology industry, and the wireless industry's contribution to the U.S. economy. He also submitted reports providing the data center market's revenue projections and key statistics on the U.S. wireless infrastructure industry and evaluating increase in electricity demand from data centers.
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 specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. While the various articles and reports demonstrate the benefits of wireless communications, the wireless industry's contribution to the U.S. economy, and the need for efficient network architecture design solutions to address the increasing power demand from data centers and ensure both economic growth and power security, they do not specifically mention the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and its impact rising to the level of national importance.Proposed endeavor too vague See id. The record lacks sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate how his proposed research activities to develop state-of-the-art network architecture to enhance the connectivity and performance of computer applications will have broader implications within the U.S. wireless industry and its associated infrastructure more broadly rather than benefiting his employer, clients, or their customers who will use his network architecture design solutions.
The Petitioner also asserts that "his work has received funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)," and "their financial support shows that [his] research advancing his proposed endeavor benefits the United States." The Petitioner submitted a copy of a conference article co-authored by the Petitioner in 2024 while he was a graduate student and a research assistant at D showing that the research work was supported by a DARPA contract and the NSF. The Petitioner also provided information about the DARPA, an independent research and development agency within the U.S. Department of War responsible for the development of emerging technologies for use by the military, and the NSF, a federal agency that supports science and enginTring T the United States. The evidence shows the interest of the federal government in one of the past research projects on decentralized fallback networks that is relevant to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." See id. at 890. In the first prong ofthe Dhansar framework, we focus on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake. See id. at 889.
Additionally, the Petitioner claims that his "work is critical to the goal of achieving and preserving the nation's technological leadership in these prioritized areas" because his proposed endeavor "has applications in advanced modeling and simulation; mesh networks/infrastructure independent communication technologies; and payloads, sensors, and instruments, all of which are formally recognized as critical and emerging technologies." To support this claim, the Petitioner provided the National Science and Technology Council's 2024 updated list of critical and emerging technologies. We recognize the value of the Petitioner's research contributions in the field of computer engineering, technological innovations, and importance of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) related professions. However, merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's documentation do not specifically mention his name or his research on wireless network connectivity and performance or discuss the government's interest in promoting the use of his planned state-of-the-art network architecture, such that it has "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or otherwise has broader implications, such as "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 id. at 889-90.
The record includes recommendation letters from experts in the field. A letter from a professor of computer science and artificial intelligence atOasserts that the Petitioner's "innovations directly support the development of key digital infrastructure, essential for both national security and the economic competitiveness of the U.S." A letter from a professor of electrical engineering and computer sciences at the~--------~affirms that the Petitioner is "a researcher of remarkable talent who is making essential contributions to the security and trustworthiness of the wireless infrastructure that underpins our nation's economy and security." A letter from a professor of computer science atl Istates that the Petitioner's "contributions are valuable to advancements in communication systems and urban resilience as a whole." A letter from a professor of computer science at I Iasserts that the Petitioner is "a uniquely talented researcher whose work is at the nexus of network resilience, cybersecurity, and the future of the internet" and his "contributions are providing the foundational technologies necessary t{ build a more secure and reliable digital society." A letter from a professor of computer science at the I I Iexpresses that the Petitioner "is not merely following industry trends but is contributing essential research that enable them, placing his work at the forefront of a technology evolution critical to U.S. interest in data privacy, secure communications, and global technological leadership." The opinions ofthe Petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered. We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter ofCaron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; we may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content ofthe references' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of an accomplished computer scientist. Cf Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (concluding that USCIS' decision to give little weight to uncorroborated assertions from professionals in the field was not arbitrary and capricious).
Here, the letters discuss the Petitioner's academic and professional achievements, publications, peer review services for prestigious journals, key research projects and the importance of his work, and contributions to the field of computer science. However, the letters do not include persuasive and corroborating information about the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and its impact rising to the level of national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The letters do not offer sufficient information and evidence to establish that the Petitioner's proposed research activities to develop stateof-the-art network architecture in order to enhance the connectivity and performance of computer applications will have an impact on the field of computer science, technology, cybersecurity, or communication systems, the wireless industry, national economy, or national security at a level commensurate with national importance. See id. Furthermore, the Petitioner's academic and professional achievements and research contributions to the field of computer science are related to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework to support that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. See id. at 890. Without sufficient documentary evidence of its broader impact, p. 7 the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. See id. at 889.
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Therefore, further analysis ofhis eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose, and we will reserve these issues for future consideration should the need arise. 5
Conclusion
Although the Petitioner has shown that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit, he has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed endeavor is of national importance. Accordingly, we conclude that the record does not establish the Petitioner is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 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 otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may be subject to the commencement of removal proceedings under section 240 ofthe Act through the issuance ofa Form 1-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.