The Petitioner, an applied scientist, 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 of the job offer requirement that is attached to this classification. 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 Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the 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 l&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 because the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor bas national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance requirement ofthe first prong ofthe Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Because this identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar prong. 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).
Law
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a 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 sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest.
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by five years ofprogressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id.
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889, provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion,2 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 issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework.
The Petitioner states that he is an expert in the field of computer science. With the initial filing, the Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor "is to develop efficient algorithms and methods in lowsource machine learning, robotics, and generative artificial intelligence assistant (AI) to enhance intelligent behavior, and decision-making capabilities across a range of applications." The Petitioner stated that he plans to pursue his proposed endeavor while employed in his current role with Amazon as an applied scientist.
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 3 After reviewing the Petitioner's initial filing, as well as evidence submitted in response to the RFE, SCOPS determined that the Petitioner had submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit and that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. However, SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance. SCOPS further concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification SCOPS stated that the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have a regional or national impact at a level consistent with having national importance, or that the Petitioner's work will have 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 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature).
broader implications in his field of endeavor. SCOPS noted that the Petitioner's reliance on the importance ofthe field is insufficient to establish that his proposed endeavor is ofnational importance. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS abused its discretion by failing to consider the totality of the evidence and making incorrect conclusions of law and statements of the facts in analyzing the evidence. We disagree with the Petitioner's assessment of SCOPS' decision. To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance of the evidence standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.; see also Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79- 80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, SCOPS acknowledged documents submitted to evaluate the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor. Based on the record, SCOPS' decision is a reasoned interpretation and consideration of the evidence. The proposed endeavor, as described, and the evidence in the record do not support the Petitioner's assertions that the potential impact of his endeavor extends beyond his employer to have a broader impact in his field or implications rising to a level of national importance.No broader implications shown
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 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. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id.
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor is to develop "efficient algorithms and model compression techniques for deploying intelligent AI systems, including large language models (LLMs) and multi-modal models, in resource-constrained environments." He stated that he plans to pursue research and development that will "significantly reduce the hardware and computational burden currently required for state-of-thetrt AI s]stems." He indicated that he would continue pursuing his endeavor as an applied scientist at where he has worked since August 2021, devoting at least 50% of his time to research on developing and evaluating new algorithms and publishing findings. He emphasized that his work as an applied scientist at I I provides institutional support and allows "research dissemination through academic publications and conference presentations."
The Petitioner asserts that SCOPS erroneously conflated his proposed endeavor and his proposed employment as an applied scientist at Amazon. Instead, he maintains that his personal statement clearly explains how his intended research projects would extend beyond his employer, having national importance based on their contributing to the advancements of new artificial intelligence technologies. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we consider evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. As research has the potential to impact the field differently than engineering projects would, details about the Petitioner's proposed employment are important for determining the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor. As noted above, in Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Therefore, we look to information about a petitioner's current and prospective positions to illustrate p. 4 the capacity in which he intends to work when determining the national importance of the proposed endeavor.
Here, the record includes a confirmation of employment letter for the Petitioner's position of applied scientist with~-----~ However, the letter does not include a detailed description of the job duties of an applied scientist. While we acknowledge that there is a distinction between the job duties of an applied scientist and research as part of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the record does not include sufficient information with which to determine how they differ.
The record also includes a letter from I IApplied Science Manager withl I I Istates that he has "worked closely" with the Petitioner and attests to his "engineering contributions," as well as the submission of a research paper and patent applications.I I states, l Ifully supports [the Petitioner's] effort to publish this work ... to share his research with the broader scientific and technical communit: through conferences, patent filings, and publishing on the I Iblog." However) _ ldoes not state in the letter that he supervises or manages the Petitioner in his role as applied scientist. Nor does he document his authority to support the sharing of the Petitioner's research on behalf of Additionally, the record does not provide sufficient information about the~-----~blog to demonstrate that it is a platform capable of reaching the broader scientific and technical community. Asl lis a private company, it is not apparent that any internal research discoveries would be made publicly available rather than maintained as proprietary information.
Notably, the Petitioner has not offered detailed information explaining how he will prospectively pursue his research projects, beyond his employment wit~ IThe record does not establish the prospective capacity, if any, in which the Petitioner will be predominantly engaged in conducting research on an ongoing basis, or how his proposed endeavor will have broader implications rising to the level of national importance. Thus, contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, the substantive nature ofthe Petitioner's current and prospective employment is directly relevant to considering his eligibility under Dhanasar 's first prong.
The Petitioner also asserts that SCOPS' analysis of his proposed endeavor's national importance did not provide a meaningful review of the evidence submitted. The Petitioner cites to Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1233 (E.D. Mich. 1994). 4 As an initial matter, like the Board of Immigration Appeals we are not bound by the published decisions of U.S. district courts even in matters arising within the same district. See Matter ofK-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719 (BIA 1993). Thus, while we may consider the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision when it is properly before us, we are not required to follow it as a matter of law. We also note that there is nothing in the Buletini decision to suggest that USCIS abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. Rather, so long as USCIS gives 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 presented. Ren v. USCIS, 60 F.4th 89, 97 (4th Cir. 2023); see also Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1142-43 (5th Cir. 1984) 4 The Buletini court opinion referred to SCOPS' failure to consider forms of evidence that the petitioner in that case submitted such as the book and the medical dictionary he authored, and his study that appeared in the largest circulation newspaper in that petitioner's home nation. See Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 1232-33. The Buletini court did not indicate that SCOPS was required to discuss each and every piece of evidence within the record.
(stating that "[the Board of Immigration Appeals] has no duty to write an exegesis on every contention").
In addition, the record does not sufficiently support the Petitioner's claim that SCOPS did not consider all relevant evidence. To the contrary- the RFE indicates that SCOPS reviewed the initially provided documentation and found it insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor met the national importance requirement. SCOPS also advised the Petitioner that pursuant to Dhanasar, in determining national importance the relevant question is not the importance ofthe field or industry, or profession in which the individual will work, but the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. We cannot therefore conclude that SCOPS did not consider all relevant evidence in evaluating the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver and ultimately denying his petition. The Petitioner makes broad claims, without corroborating evidence, that his research would impact national government policies and advance the field of artificial intelligence. His statement provides summaries, without specific details or supporting evidence, of his intended projects, each of which generally states his research will include artificial intelligence and machine learning to improve the quality of search results and enhance the quality and reliability of response generation. While the Petitioner's research on artificial intelligence may demonstrate the substantial merit of the 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.
The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the "specific endeavor." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. When analyzing the national importance of a petitioner's proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's framework, we focus on the prospective impact ofthe proposed endeavor, instead oflimiting our analysis to a petitioner's employment at the time of filing. An endeavor is more specific than a general occupation and should include details of the types of work a petitioner intends to undertake and describe specific projects and goals. See generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. As a comparison, the petitioner 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 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 of how his continued research would assist the United States in maintaining its advantage over other nations in hypersonic flight, including documentation reflecting his receipt of funding from a government entity for his research. Id.
Here, in his personal statement submitted in response to the RFE, the Petitioner summarized three aspects of his research: researching efficient LLM architectures, algorithms for efficient training of LLMs, and efficient multi-modal models for edge and consumer applications. However, he has not provided the level of specific details or documentation as required under Dhanasar to support his claims that his proposed research would not be proprietary to his employer and would have the potential to extend beyond his employer and impact the field of artificial intelligence or other fields and industries. The Petitioner mainly relies on his statements and support letters, without corroborating evidence, to characterize his research work as valuable for advancing the field of p. 6 I artificial intelligence. While we acknowledge that the Petitioner provided a list of references for the assertions in his personal statement, these resources speak to the importance of AI generally. He has not provided evidence to support his claims that his specific proposed research projects would advance his field more broadly or would be different from work typically performed by an applied scientist for I The Petitioner has not detailed or established with supporting evidence his plans to introduce novel technologies or advancements that may be disseminated to or adopted by others operating in the field or industry. A petitioner must also support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. As the Petitioner has not done so here, he has not sufficiently established that his proposed endeavor in the United States will have national importance under the first Dhanasar prong.
Although the Petitioner contends that his plans to disseminate his findings through scholarly publications and industry conferences show his endeavor would have broad national impact, beyond his employer, this statement is not supported in the record. The Petitioner emphasizes that his research work has had a broad impact in his field, pointing to his previous research work having been cited, published in reputable industry publications, and presented at industry conferences. While the Petitioner's previous research may help to understand his proposed endeavor, such previous work mainly relates to whether he is well-positioned to advance his endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong.
Much of the evidence in the record and the Petitioner's arguments focus on the importance of the field of artificial intelligence.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's To support the argument for national importance, the Petitioner submitted various articles and reports discussing the use of artificial intelligence in search engines, as well as national government initiatives aimed at the development of safe and secure use of artificial intelligence. This evidence, however, does not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed projects and their potential impact on the field or on such national initiatives.Past record does not show influence or success
The Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor aligns with national government initiatives and USCIS policy guidance recognizing the importance of advancing artificial intelligence for national security and progress in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). He maintains that his endeavor involves research to advance STEM technologies, in particular artificial intelligence technologies which are recognized by the U.S. National Science and Technology Council as being critical and emerging. While USCIS recognizes specific evidentiary considerations relating to STEM degrees and fields, "the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance." See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(4). We acknowledge the overall value of the advancement of artificial intelligence, 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. The Petitioner has not sufficiently detailed his proposed research or provided supporting evidence to explain and allow us to understand how it would advance STEM technologies with sufficiently broad potential implications for his field and would rise to the level ofnational importance. Moreover, the Petitioner does not offer a sufficiently direct connection between his proposed research and policy, economic growth and national productivity enhancements as he claims, or that his proposed research work would otherwise p. 7 have broader implications for the artificial intelligence industry, U.S. national technology initiatives, or other industries.
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose. As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar prong. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that he has not established he 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 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.