The Petitioner, a researcher, 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. § 1153(b )(2).
USCIS denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate he 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.
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof 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 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 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 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining 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).
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
For the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification, USCIS concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
2 The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. USCIS determined that while the Petitioner established meeting the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he did not demonstrate meeting the first and third Dhanasar prongs. Upon de novo review, we agree with USCIS' detennination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor is of national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 3 On appeal, the Petitioner contends that USCIS misidentified his proposed endeavor by conflating his endeavor with his proposed employment, misinterpreted material facts, and ignored evidence in its evaluation of the standards set out in Dhanasar. In the decision's analysis of his endeavor and its national importance, the Petitioner alleges that USCIS abused its discretion relying on irrelevant considerations and not appropriately evaluating his proposed endeavor and the totality ofthe evidence, citing Buletini v. INS, 850 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994). He maintains that when considering the evidence in its totality, including his statements and recommendation letters from colleagues in his field, he clearly demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed endeavor is of national importance. We disagree with the Petitioner's assessment of USCIS' decision, as discussed below.
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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376; see also Matter ofEM-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79- 80 (Comm'r 1989). The court in Buletini did not suggest that USCIS abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim a petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence a petitioner presents. Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022); Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir. 1992); aff'd Morales v. INS, 208 F.3d 323, 328 (1st Cir. 2000); see also Pakasi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 2009); Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Teixeira, 62 F.4th 10, 25 (1st Cir. 2023) (concluding a trier of fact "need not articulate its conclusions as to every jot and tittle of evidence in making a determination").
Based on the record, USCIS' decision is a reasoned interpretation and consideration of the evidence. The decision acknowledged and analyzed documents submitted and weighed the evidence but determined that the evidence lacked probative value. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 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 would have a broader impact on his field or implications rising to a level of national importance.No broader implications shown
For his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner states he intends "to develop and integrate strategies that address challenges in digital privacy, data protection, artificial intelligence (Al), and digital media, in order to provide insights into policymaking, industry practices, and public awareness that improve national competitiveness and societal well-being." In his request for evidence reply, the Petitioner provided a statement to further explain his research, stating he will focus on three areas, "privacy and data protection in the digital age, the societal impact and ethical considerations of Al, and the transformation of economic landscapes through digital media." By leveraging his experience, he seeks "to contribute to developing evidence-based solutions that strengthen America's position as a global leader in technological innovation while ensuring that this progress aligns with fundamental rights and values." He claims his research will contribute to strengthening the economy and employment while balancing innovation, societal well-being, and national security.
Noting his employment would be separate from his proposed endeavor, he expresses his intent to work as a researcher in the United States by pursing a position with Georgia Institute of Technology. In addition, the Petitioner states he intends to circulate his research work through peer-reviewed publications and present at conferences.
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 l&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. An endeavor is more specific than a general occupation and should include details of the types ofwork a petitioner intends to undertake and describe specific projects and goals. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. The Petitioner has not offered a specific proposed endeavor for his intended research work as required under Dhanasar, and he has not provided the level of focus or documentation to support his claims that his proposed research has the potential to impact his fields of digital privacy, data protection, AI, and digital media, or any other fields and industries. While the Petitioner provides an overview of his proposed research by identifying three areas of focus and their potential implications, his descriptions are brief summaries lacking specific details and evidence supporting his claims of their impacts. The Petitioner conducting research at a U.S. university with a focus on developing strategies that address challenges in digital privacy, data protection, AI, and digital media to improve technology, national security, national competitiveness, and societal welfare may demonstrate the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. However, his proposed research and evidence in the record do not support or demonstrate his endeavor's prospective potential impact nationally, or globally, or through broader implications rising to a level of national importance.
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, the Petitioner has not provided the level of specific details or documentation as required under Dhanasar to support his claims.
The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor aims to help advance knowledge and develop evidence-based solutions for regulatory and technological frameworks addressing national concerns highlighted in government initiatives, in particular initiatives prioritizing challenges to internet privacy, data protection, AI, and digital media. The Petitioner stresses the importance of the United States maintaining technological leadership and economic competitiveness in order to preserve national security and democratic values. His statement provides an overview of multiple national initiatives, legislation, policies, and strategies which focus on addressing challenges to data privacy and protection, artificial intelligence, and digital media.
However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently detailed his proposed research or provided supporting evidence to understand how it would impact national initiatives or have sufficiently broad potential implications for his field rising to the level of national importance. The importance of the U.S. government initiatives is not in dispute, but their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular. Moreover, the importance of an industry or field is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework. See id. at 889-90. Merely conducting research focused on digital privacy, data protection, AI, and digital media is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake" and consider the endeavor's "potential prospective impact." Id. at 889. The Petitioner does not quantify the proposed endeavor's expected impact in the identified areas of concern, or provide objective, probative evidence to support his contentions. The Petitioner has not demonstrated the potential prospective impact of his specific endeavor to nationally important matters of addressing challenges to digital privacy, data protection, AI, and digital media.
While the Petitioner asserts that USCIS erroneously dismissed his colleagues' recommendation letters and his previous research citation history as corroborating his claims, the letters do not discuss his proposed endeavor and his plans to introduce the claimed innovative advancements which may be disseminated to or adopted by others operating in his field or any other industry.Citation record not persuasive A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.
Instead ofdiscussing his proposed endeavor and its potential prospective impact, his colleague's letters mainly provide general summaries ofhis previous research projects.Support letters generic or unsupported For instance, a letter from Dr. SS-explains the Petitioner's previous research which examined "the interplay between religiosity and p. 5 migration tendencies in Iran," while endorsing his continued research which would "contribute to the development of more effective strategies at the confluence of technology, society, and policy." Another letter from Dr. E-S- discusses the Petitioner's previous research related to Iranians and privacy preservation on social media, while also providing broad support to the Petitioner continuing digital media research. Similarly, a letter from Dr. B-M-B- discusses the Petitioner's previous research which examined "the complex relationship between technological advancement and artistic creation." While the letters generally reference the Petitioner's previous research contributing to his field and being of importance, they do not specifically mention the Petitioner's proposed research endeavor.Proposed endeavor too vague Moreover, the Petitioner has not explained how his previous research work is related to his proposed endeavor.
We acknowledge the Petitioner's academic achievements and contributions, but he has not offered sufficient infonnation and evidence based on the recommendation letters and his previous research work to demonstrate his claims ofproviding new innovative methodologies that would impact his field or any other industries. While the recommendation letters and his prior research citation record may help to better understand his proposed endeavor and its potential impact, such evidence mainly relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, instead of speaking to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The second prong of the Dhanasar framework "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his proposed research work. Id. at 889.
The Petitioner mainly relies on his statements, without corroborating evidence, to characterize his proposed research work as valuable for advancing the fields of data protection, AI, and digital media, and impacting economic growth, societal welfare, national security, and national initiatives. The Petitioner has not detailed or established with supporting evidence his plans to introduce novel innovations or advancements that may be disseminated to or adopted by others operating in the fields or any industry. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&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 frrst Dhanasar prong.
USCIS further determined that while the Petitioner established that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong, he did not establish that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification under Dhanasar 's third prong.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner qualifies for the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. This identified basis for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, and therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under the second and third prongs of Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "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 of L-A-C-, 26 l&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 established eligibility under the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons.
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.