The Petitioner, a computer 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 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 petition, concluding the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 oJChawathe, 25 l&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 withdraw SCOPS' decision and remand the matter for the entry of a new decision.
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 ofa 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) ofthe 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. 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.
National Interest Waiver
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. We agree with this determination. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework.
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id.
The Petitioner indicates he is in expert in the field ofcomputer science and that his proposed endeavor is "preclinical research by developing and integrating advanced computer vision, multi-object tracking, and large language models in order to accelerate drug discovery in neuroscience, aging, and sleep research." The Petitioner asserts his proposed endeavor would have broad implications for U.S. public health and economic competitiveness by contributing to the fast development of safe and efficient drugs in the United States. The Petitioner states that his novel machine learning approaches for evaluating high-dimensional biological datasets would represent a "a boon to the nation's burgeoning AI drug discovery market."
SCOPS determined the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that his proposed endeavor "rose to the level of national importance." SCOPS reasoned that although the Petitioner provided government materials and articles, these did not show how his proposed endeavor had national importance. SCOPS acknowledged the importance of the field of computer science but indicated that his publication and citation record did not demonstrate "how past research success suggests that the future endeavor will have a similar impact."Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's SCOPS indicated that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor would "aim to advance STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics] technologies or research" or that it would have an impact more broadly to establish its national importance.
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that SCOPS did not discuss the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner emphasizes the assertions and evidence he submitted in response to SCOPS' request for evidence (RFE) and claims it was not properly considered in relation to all the prongs. More specifically, the Petitioner discusses a support letter from Dr. V-G- a professor of medicine at Iwho indicated that the Petitioner's work "advances the development of safer and more effective treatments while reducing animal testing." Dr. V-G- further stated that the Petitioner's endeavor could improve public health, save lives, boost the U.S. economy, and foster innovation in AI-driven computer science. Likewise, the Petitioner points to a letter he submitted in I p. 3 response to the RFE discussing his participation in the "StartX Accelerator Program" providing him with a "vital network and resources" and strengthening his ability to "scale his technological advancements." The Petitioner asserts that SCOPS made its determination as to national importance with "essentially no analysis of the specific evidence submitted in the Petition and RFE Response." He also questions SCOPS' conclusion that his proposed endeavor does not aim to advance STEM technology, indicating that his proposed research in AI, computer vision, multi-object tracking, and large language models focused on accelerating drug discovery clearly deals with STEM technology. Upon review, we agree that SCOPS' denial decision does not include sufficient analysis as to whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit or national importance. As noted by the Petitioner, the denial decision does not clearly address whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and appears to conclude that it would not involve STEM technology.
Further, SCOPS' determination as to national importance includes little meaningful analysis relevant to the Petitioner's assertions and the evidence he submitted in response to the RFE, including the support letters discussed above. As such, we will remand this matter to SCOPS for full consideration of the submitted evidence and for thorough analysis applying the Dhanasar framework. Any conclusions as to national importance should include discussion of the evidence submitted by the Petitioner, and if applicable, a clear indication as to why it is insufficient to demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
Second, when discussing the second of prong of Dhanasar and whether the Petitioner was well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, SCOPS first stated that "the evidence does not demonstrate the petition is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor," followed by an apparent typographical error including internal commentary. The denial then proceeded to state in contradiction that the Petitioner had established eligibility under the second prong of Dhanasar.Inconsistencies in the record On remand, SCOPS should correct this error and clearly indicate its determination as to whether or not the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, including clear analysis to support this conclusion.
The Director should also fully analyze the third prong of Dhanasar, as necessary, based on their determinations with respect to the first and second prongs discussed above, including specific discussion of the submitted evidence. SCOPS may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination and any other issues. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand.
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis.