The Petitioner, an engineer and researcher in the green energy field, 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. § 1153(b)(2).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner established his eligibility for classification as an advanced degree professional, the record did not establish that a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus 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. An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
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:
- 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
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, based on evidence that he has a master's degree in mechanical engineerinr froml !University and a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from I I University .__ ___, The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. SCOPS found that the Petitioner established the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor but did not satisfy any of the three required prongs of the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar.
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the decision is not sufficiently supported by the evidence in the record and that SCOPS did not correctly apply the appropriate evidentiary standard or the analytical framework in Matter of Dhanasar. Upon de novo review we conclude, for the reasons discussed below, that SCOPS did not sufficiently analyze the record based on the framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar or adequately put the Petitioner on notice regarding any evidentiary deficiencies found in the record. A remand of the matter is therefore appropriate.
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual 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. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id.
In a statement submitted with the petition, the Petitioner indicated that his proposed endeavor is to accelerate the practical application of renewable energy conversion and clean foel generation technologies across diverse electrochemical applications, including foel cells and electrolyzers, to address the global challenges of climate change and energy security. The Petitioner explained that "for the foreseeable future," he plans to pursue his proposed endeavor while working as a chemical systems engineer atl IInc., a position he has held since 2022. He indicated that his research findings would "continue to be circulated in the field" through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, noting that his research is "promoted at the national level through I I Inc. 's partnerships and national laboratories." In a subsequent statement submitted in response to SCOPS' request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a more detailed description ofhis specific research endeavor and emphasized that he also continues working on research projects with his previous Ph.D. advisor atLJ independent from his employment atl I In finding that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, SCOPS stated that "the evidence does not include information about the national importance of the p. 3 proposed endeavor" and that the Petitioner "did not submit evidence in support" of the claim that the endeavor is nationally important. On remand, SCOPS may ultimately determine that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor; however, we conclude that it is contrary to record before us to characterize it as containing "no evidence" supporting the proposed endeavor's national importance.
Further, while SCOPS' decision includes some additional discussion under the first prong, it did so with no specific references to the relevant evidence the Petitioner provided with the petition and in response to a request for evidence (RFE). SCOPS also reached other unsupported conclusions, noting, for example, "the record did not show that your proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond your company, future clientele or business partnership to impact the field more broadly."Claims not backed by documents The Petitioner, as observed above, does not plan to pursue his proposed endeavor through his own company, as SCOPS implied with this statement. Given the decision's lack of references to the specific claims in the record, we cannot determine whether or to what extent SCOPS evaluated the Petitioner's evidence and legal arguments pertaining to Dhanasar's first prong.
On remand, SCOPS should examine the specific evidence in the record to determine the potential prospective impact ofthe proposed endeavor on green energy research and whether it is commensurate with national importance as described in Matter ofDhanasar. In doing so, SCOPS should evaluate, for example, whether the record supports the Petitioner's claim that the results ofhis research endeavor would be disseminated to others in the field through scientific journal publications and conference presentations.
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. To determine whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to: their 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 Id.
Here, SCOPS acknowledged the Petitioner's advanced degrees but did not address any other evidence in the record beyond generally acknowledging that the Petitioner provided information regarding his publications and citations to his work.Citation record not persuasive SCOPS determined that the Petitioner did not meet the second prong because he did not show his work "has affected research practices," "has served as an impetus for progress" or "generated substantial positive discourse" in the field. SCOPS also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the second prong because the evidence was insufficient to establish that he has "made a significant contribution" in the United States.
SCOPS' analysis does not adhere to the framework provided in Matter ofDhanasar for evaluating the second prong. Although SCOPS enumerated the relevant factors articulated in Matter ofDhanasar, the decision does not analyze the evidence in the record at it relates to these factors. Instead of analyzing the Petitioner's education, knowledge, skills, and record of success in related or similar efforts; the Petitioner's model or plan for future activities; and the interest of potential customers, p. 4 users, investors, or other relevant entities, SCOPS focused on the Petitioner's influence and contributions to the field.
We agree that a petitioner's substantial influence and significant contributions to the field may be positive factors under the second prong analysis, as they may establish, for example, an individual's knowledge, skills, and record of success. But considering a Petitioner's influence and contributions in isolation provides an insufficient and incomplete evaluation of the factors enumerated in Matter of Dhanasar. Moreover, primarily relying on an "influence standard" was an approach that we explicitly rejected in Matter ofDhanasar when we vacated our decision in Matter ofNew York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOI), 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998), which established the previous framework used for evaluating national interest waiver petitions. See Matter ofDhanasar, 22 I&N Dec. at 887-88 n.6.
Therefore, on remand, SCOPS should consider the specific evidence in the record in determining whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the endeavor based upon the factors enumerated in Matter of Dhanasar, as well as any other relevant factors. For example, in evaluating the Petitioner's model or plan for future activities, SCOPS may consider whether there is sufficient evidence in the record regarding his employment at Cummins Inc., such as the amount of time the Petitioner will dedicate to research rather than to practical engineering tasks relating to his employer's products, and any other factors that may impact the feasibility ofthe Petitioner advancing the proposed research endeavor through this employment. 2 SCOPS should also consider whether the Petitioner adequately documented his claimed ongoing collaborative relationship with his former advisor at ASU, as he indicates that this relationship would provide another avenue for pursuing his proposed research endeavor.
C. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial
The third prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate 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. Id. at 890-91. In performing this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the individual's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Id. In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements ofa job offer and thus ofa labor certification. Id. at 891.
Here, SCOPS' determination under Dhanasar's third prong did not sufficiently discuss or analyze the evidence in the record as it relates to these factors. Instead, SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner made "[g]eneral assertions" regarding the influence of his work in the field and that those assertions are insufficient to satisfy this prong. SCOPS also noted that the Petitioner did not establish the first and 2 While not required, USCIS considers a job offer or communications with prospective employers relevant to demonstrate the circumstances or capacity in which the petitioner intends to carry out the endeavor and the feasibility of that plan. See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. p. 5 second prongs of Dhanasar. While we agree that the issue of whether a petitioner has established eligibility under the first and second prongs is relevant, SCOPS did not discuss the enumerated factors of the third prong at all.
While the evidence ofrecord may ultimately be insufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver, SCOPS did not adequately address the evidence and arguments submitted with the initial filing and in response to the RFE, did not discuss most of the relevant factors set forth in Dhanasar, and therefore did not sufficiently explain the reasons for denial. An officer's written decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); cf Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Here, for the reasons discussed, SCOPS' decision does not meet these requirements. Accordingly, the decision is withdrawn.
Conclusion
On remand, SCOPS should review the entire record, including the Petitioner's appeal, in considering whether he has established eligibility for a national interest waiver, and enter a new decision which, if unfavorable to the Petitioner, must comply with the requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). SCOPS may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination. As such we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case.
ORDER: The decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis.
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 1-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.