The Petitioner, a data scientist, 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus ofthe labor certification, would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 ofChristo'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 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 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining 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
SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a professional holding an advanced degree. The record supports that conclusion. The Petitioner has a U.S. master's degree in data analytics and foreign master's degrees in data science and business analytics and in international marketing. The remaining issue to be determined 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.
The Petitioner works as a senior scientist specializing in artificial intelligence (AT). He is employed by a multinational company headquartered in the United States specializing in industrial and precision technologies. His proposed endeavor is to continue working with his employer, where he will "design and deploy advanced AT-driven solutions that enhance business operations, boost productivity, and contribute to the economic growth of the United States." He states that, through his employer, he will continue leading the implementation of generative AI and machine learning projects to enhance predictive analytics, automate sales and marketing processes, and optimize data-driven decisionmaking. He claims that his work will directly support the company's global operations by improving efficiency, reducing costs, and enabling the company to develop AI-powered solutions that enhance equipment performance and customer engagement.
Although SCOPS determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and that he is well positioned to advance the endeavor, SCOPS concluded that the record did not establish that the endeavor is of national importance or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to grant a waiver of the job offer requirement.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates previous assertions concerning his eligibility, stating that SCOPS erred in several ways by denying his petition. Upon review, for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 T&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. The relevant question is not the importance of the 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 Matter ofDhanasar, we farther noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that"[a ]n 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. If the evidence of record demonstrates that an p. 3 individual's proposed endeavor has the significant potential to, for example, contribute to the advancement ofa valuable technology or field ofstudy, it may rise to the level ofnational importance. 2 Regarding an endeavor in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), importance may be found in its contribution to U.S. competitiveness or security in a variety of circumstances, such as when it will help the United States remain ahead of strategic competitors or current and potential adversaries. 3Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's
USCIS recognizes the importance of progress in STEM fields and the essential role of persons with advanced STEM degrees, especially in focused critical and emerging technologies or other STEM areas important to U.S. competitiveness or national security. 4 However, a proposed endeavor does not necessarily carry national importance based solely on its relationship to a critical and emerging technology; when evaluating the national importance of a proposed endeavor, it is not the overall importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual intends to work, but the particular endeavor on which an individual intends to embark. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
To provide context concerning the national importance of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner submitted reports and articles discussing topics including the projected impacts of AI on business efficiency, productivity, and the economy, as well as government initiatives concerning AI. While this documentation discusses a number of considerations and possibilities for AI usage, it does not provide clarity concerning how the Petitioner's specific endeavor to continue his work with his current employer will constitute an endeavor commensurate with national importance. By building AI agents for critical functions, he states, he will create scalable efficiencies that will "create ripple effects across the economy by supporting job creation, driving innovation, and positioning the U.S. as a global leader in AI technology." The record, however, does not contain evidence to illustrate how optimizing efficiencies for his employer-work that will "directly support" his employer's operations-will lead to outcomes ofthe scope he describes. Benefits to a specific employer, alone-even an employer with a national footprint-are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether an individual's endeavor has national importance. At issue is whether the individual can demonstrate that their own individual endeavor stands to have broader implications, such as for a field, a region, or the public at large. 5 More specifically, the Petitioner defines most of his proposed endeavor through descriptions of his work for specific employers. He provided letters of support from individuals who have worked with him, including from a previous employer and from a member of Delaware's state government. These letters laude his creativity and communications skills, and they describe several of his work contributions, including his work on complex datasets as an intern. The Director ofl I I Iat his current employer describes him as "an invaluable member of our data science unit," citing his work on "the development of a sales assistive chatbot powered by AI" and "customer driven analysis initiatives leveraging machine learning techniques." The Senior Manager ofl I I Iasserts that the company "greatly benefits from individuals like [the Petitioner] who drive technological advancement and efficiency, stating that "[h ]is contributions directly enhance our competitiveness in the global market." The Global Director of.__ _____~_ _.at the company 2 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual at F.5(D)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 3 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(4).
cites the Petitioner's development of an "enterprise-grade AI assistant designed to support sales account managers" that "has now cut up to 80% of the time spent on repetitive tasks" and "has generated tremendous internal success." The letter states that this "single initiative is expected to deliver millions in additional revenue and has directly influenced [the company's] strategic decision to invest farther in AI capabilities." Letters from individuals in the field who are familiar with the Petitioner's work also describe his contributions to his current employer.
On appeal, the Petitioner stresses that his proposed endeavor will have broad implications for the United States, asserting that his work for his employer "is not an isolated success, but rather a roadmap for the modernization of American industry." Documentation in the record shows that the Petitioner played a role in the development of an AI-powered sales and intelligence platform for his employer. He claims that the "success of his methodology has been clearly demonstrated by its scalability, with solutions being adopted by" several of his company's locations domestically and abroad. He further asserts that the implementation of AI solutions at those locations shows that "his contributions ... represent broader, transferable frameworks and systems that could be leveraged by any U.S. company ... to significantly enhance their competitiveness." He cites an expert opinion letter from a principal at the data cloud company on which his employer's platform was built. The letter highlights the potential implications for other enterprises by emphasizing that strategic challenges the employer is solving are faced by the majority of large U.S. industrial corporations. The letter explains that the employer's solutions show the value of AI and encourages its wider adoption. The letter concludes that the employer's "technical leadership fosters a more resilient, innovative, and technologically advanced industrial base for the United States."
Matter ofDhanasar contemplates that an undertaking may have national importance "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. at 889. Documentation in the record spotlights the benefits that AI-driven technology applications and solutions have had for the Petitioner's employer, and the Petitioner has played a significant role in utilizing that technology for the company. Assertions concerning the wider impact of the company's sales and intelligence platform, however, are not corroborated. While the record demonstrates the Petitioner's value to his past and present employers, it does not include sufficient evidence to demonstrate how his specific work has implications for the use ofAI to increase efficiency and productivity through "ripple effects" that will impact a particular field or the economy on a broader scale.No broader implications shown A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.
On appeal, the Petitioner also claims that SCOPS failed to consider his advanced degrees in a STEM field when assessing his proposed endeavor's national importance. An individual's education and skillset, however, relate to considerations under Dhanasar 's second prong. 6 Under Dhanasar 's first prong, STEM is a relevant factor when considering whether a proposed endeavor has sufficiently broad potential implications to demonstrate national importance. 7 The Petitioner reiterates that his intention is to continue his work with his employer developing AI-driven technology solutions to enhance enterprise efficiency and decision-making. He asserts that his endeavor holds national 6 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(4).
importance because it supports national-level priorities and because "it is a direct driver of economic competitiveness and national security advantage in a global, technology-driven race." To support his assertion, he cites documentation previously submitted discussing government initiatives concerning AI and the possible impacts of AI on businesses and the economy. While this information conveys the national importance of continued efforts to use AI in ways that are advantageous to the United States, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his endeavor to continue his work with his current employer will have a level of impact within his field on a scale commensurate with national importance. Again, it is not the proverbial value of the field in which an individual intends to work, but the particular endeavor an individual intends to pursue that we consider in assessing its national importance. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
The record does not establish the national importance ofthe proposed endeavor as required by the first prong ofMatter of Dhanasar. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. 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).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor has national importance. As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter ofdiscretion. The petition will remain denied.
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.S(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 of a 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.