The Petitioner, a clinical assistant professor of veterinary pathology, 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 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner established she was an advanced degree professional, but did not demonstrate that a waiver of the required job offer, 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 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 withdraw the decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis.
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 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: (1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and (3) on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. Id.
Analysis
In evaluating the Petitioner's request for a national interest waiver, SCOPS concluded that while the Petitioner had established she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, she had not demonstrated her proposed endeavor's national importance or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer requirements. On appeal, the Petitioner contends, among other things, that SCOPS misapplied Dhanasar and USCIS policy guidance, and that the evidence is sufficient to establish her eligibility for a national interest waiver. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that SCOPS' decision did not adequately address the evidence submitted or provide sufficient analysis based on the record to support their conclusions.
An officer must folly explain the reasons for denying a visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). This explanation should be sufficient to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must folly explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Here, SCOPS did not meet this requirement.
In describing her endeavor, the Petitioner states that "[ d]ue to the implications of infectious diseases in animals and how they can take a toll on public health, I aim to use my veterinary pathology research expertise to develop and re-validate testing methods that can diagnose blood cancers and infectious disease in our animal populations." She stated that for the immediate future, she planned to remain in her position as an assistant clinical professor and continue publishing her work, as well as bring her ongoing research projects to fruition. For the long-term, she planned to either remain in her current position or seek a permanent, tenure-track position at another university or scientific research institute. In finding the Petitioner did not meet Dhanasar 's first prong, SCOPS determined that the Petitioner did not show that the prospective impact of her endeavor rose to the level of national importance. SCOPS concluded that the evidence did not include information about the endeavor's national importance, that the Petitioner had not submitted evidence to support her claims that she would bring significant benefits to the U.S., or that the record established her work and individual contributions offered original innovations of such significance that they would advance the field. SCOPS also concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her proposed endeavor would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects" or that the proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond her company, future clientele, or business partnership to impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
In making their determination, however, SCOPS did not meaningfully address or analyze the Petitioner's evidence submitted in support of this prong. While SCOPS stated that the evidence "does not include information about the national importance of the proposed endeavor," the record reflects that the Petitioner submitted documentation including her "Plan for Future Activities, personal statement, recommendation letters, government publications, and industry articles and reports, which she claims demonstrated her endeavor's national importance. For example, the Petitioner submitted a letter by.__ __________. the Director of thel Iwho p. 3 commented on the Petitioner's research working towards validating two new tests, not currently available in veterinary medicine, to diagnose immune-mediated diseases in dogs, cats, and equine species. I Iclaimed the Petitioner's research is "significant to the progress in veterinary sciences on a global and national level" and that her research and expertise will "play a significant role in shaping veterinary medicine and pathology advances." The decision provides little analysis of this evidence and instead broadly concludes the evidence was insufficient to meet this prong. Moreover, as raised by the Petitioner on appeal, a proposed endeavor's economic impact is but one consideration under Dhanasar 's first prong. In Dhanasar, we stated that, in determining national importance, we consider the proposed endeavor's "potential prospective impact" and "look for broader implications," noting that"[a ]n 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. at 889.
In her "Plan for Future Activities," the Petitioner claims that her research "utilizes novel practices to elucidate our ability to leverage and improve pathology testing methods and to farther the development of new and more accurate tests." She contends that her work will contribute to "ongoing progress in veterinary pathology with benefits to U.S. advancement in public health sectors." As discussed above though, these research activities and their potentially broader implications, or lack thereof, were not discussed. While SCOPS acknowledged the fields of veterinary pathology and pathobiology as a critical and emerging technology, as well as government budget priorities supporting the same, they found the record did not establish the endeavor's prospective impact and that her proposed work and individual contributions offered original innovations of such significance that they would advance the field. But, they provided little explanation or analysis of the evidence for their determination. It is unclear how SCOPS reached their conclusions and whether SCOPS folly analyzed the record in making their decision. While the record may or may not ultimately be sufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility under this prong, SCOPS' decision did not adequately address the evidence or provide sufficient analysis to support its determination.
On remand, SCOPS should revisit the descriptions ofthe proposed endeavor, including the Petitioner's research projects outlined in her personal statements and other evidence of record. After reviewing the Petitioner's endeavor, SCOPS should then examine the specific evidence in the record to determine the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor, including whether the evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner's endeavor to develop and re-validate testing methods that can diagnose blood cancers and infectious disease in animals would have the broader, nationally important implications as claimed.
With regard to Dhanasar 's second prong, to determine whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals.Past record does not show influence or success
SCOPS found that the Petitioner demonstrated she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. However, the decision lacked any analysis explaining how they reached this conclusion. And, based on the record, it is unclear whether the Petitioner has met her burden to show she satisfies p. 4 this prong. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375 (stating that petitioners bear the burden of establishing their eligibility and under this standard we consider the quality, such as relevance and probative value, of the evidence, in addition to quantity).
For instance, the record reflects that the Petitioner is currently employed full-time as an assistant clinical professor. Her duties are divided between departmental service and outreach, teaching, and research, as well as training and mentoring residents and interns. But, the record is unclear as to how she will divide her time between these activities and how she specifically plans to pursue her proposed research and other activities in this context.
Additionally, the Petitioner contends, among other things, that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor because of her history of achievements, including her publication and citation record. With her initial petition, she submitted evidence of 10 peer reviewed publications, which had 178 citations at the time of filing and 202 citations by the RFE response. Although the Petitioner contends that "[her] impact on the field can be demonstrated through her strong citation history," the record does not appear to contain sufficient evidence to substantiate her claims.Citation record not persuasive The record lacks context regarding her citation record and whether this level of citation reflects a strong citation history. In her I-140 filing, the Petitioner also argues that she was the recipient of four grant awards collectively totaling over $76,000, which she claims shows her "outstanding research abilities and contributions to the field of veterinary atholog .
"2 She submitted evidence of the following grants: (1) $63,368 from the in 2014; (2) $6,249 for thel I
Based on the record before us, the evidence does not appear to establish the Petitioner is well positioned to pursue the proposed endeavor. But, without a specific discussion of the evidence, it is unclear how SCOPS reached their favorable conclusion on this prong.
Accordingly, we withdraw SCOPS' decision and remand this matter for further consideration and entry of a new decision. On remand, SCOPS should review the entire record and determine whether the Petitioner has established eligibility under each ofthe three Dhanasar prongs. IfSCOPS concludes that the Petitioner's evidence does not meet a specific eligibility requirement, the decision should discuss the insufficiencies in the evidence and adequately explain the reasons for ineligibility. SCOPS may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the determination prior to issuing a new decision. In remanding, we express no opinion as to the ultimate resolution of the case. ORDER: The decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis.