The Petitioner, a computer scientist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the proposed endeavor was of national importance. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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.
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 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.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) 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.
Analysts
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
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. 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 industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" ofthe 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. To evaluate whether a petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of their work. In Dhanasar we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893.
The Petitioner has not sufficiently described his proposed endeavor. In his initial statement, he stated that his proposed endeavor is "the practice of the occupation of Computer Science (CS), including CS (STEM) Higher Education." He did not provide further details to adequately clarify what his endeavor would encompass. The Director noted this issue in the request for evidence (RFE). In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that he proposed to "build manpower" in computing, "[o ]utput work in the industry that is founded on the Computing occupation," and "[ c ]onduct research on the topic of the convergence of Machine Learning (ML) or Artificial Intelligence (AT) and High Performance 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). p. 3 Computing (HPC)." We agree with the Director's decision this is not a well-detailed description of a proposed endeavor. Anyone seeking this waiver must identify "the specific endeavor" that they propose to undertake, as the term "endeavor" is more specific than the general occupation. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889; see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. A petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that occupation. Id. The Petitioner in this case has not conformed to these requirements. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner additionally stated that he "recently created a company to enable [him] to provide consulting services." We also agree with the Director that the Petitioner's inclusion of a consulting company constitutes a material change in the endeavor.Tried to change the endeavor after filing A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). The inclusion of consulting is a distinct addition from the initial proposed endeavor as it significantly expands the endeavor outside the original focus. As the Dhanasar framework requires an analysis of the substantial merit and national importance of the specific endeavor proposed by an individual, such an addition is material to his eligibility for a national interest waiver. Also, a petitioner must demonstrate eligibility requirements for the requested benefit at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The Petitioner's proposal to now establish a consulting company, submitted for the first time in his RFE response, cannot establish eligibility as it was not presented in the original petition. Accordingly, we will only consider the proposed endeavor as described in the initial filing when conducting our analysis under the Dhanasar framework.
Overall, the Petitioner has not adequately established how his proposed endeavor will have a broader impact on the field, a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or substantial positive economic effects, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. 26 I&N Dec. at 889.No broader implications shown As it concerns his current position as a professor, similar to the petitioner in Dhanasar, while the Petitioner's plan to instruct students has substantial merit, he has not demonstrated that his actions as an individual instructor would impact the computer science field more broadly. Id. at 893.
Regarding his research plans, while we recognize that research in the fields mentioned by the Petitioner may result in broader implications, the Petitioner has not clearly explained his plans, such that he has not met his burden to establish his proposal is of national importance. As noted above, the Petitioner has stated that he will "[c]onduct research on the topic of the convergence of Machine Leaming (ML) or Artificial Intelligence (AI) and High Performance Computing (HPC)," but has not provided sufficient further information to adequately define his research proposal. Stating the general area of research, as the Petitioner has done here, without more, does not sufficiently describe a specific proposed endeavor to allow for analysis and assessment under the three-prong Dhanasar framework. 26 I&N Dec. at 889; see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(l).
Furthermore, the record does not contain sufficient supporting evidence to establish the endeavor's national importance. 2 The letters of recommendation mainly address the Petitioner's skills or past work. We observe that some of the letters of recommendation discuss the shortage of computer science educators and the importance of teaching computer science. However, the evidence does not 2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. p. 4 establish how the intention to fill a single position would have a national impact on this claimed shortage. In addition, the general importance of the field of computer science does not confer national importance on the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.Proposed endeavor too vague In determining national importance of a proposed endeavor within the Dhanasar framework, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work, but the impact ofthe specific endeavor that the individual will undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889.
The remaining record concerns the Petitioner's past accomplishments, such as employment verification, evidence of the Petitioner's training certifications, association memberships, and past research papers. The Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments and experiences, not the specific endeavor's potential impact in the computer science field. Generally, this type of evidence is more appropriate for the second prong when determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
As such, in the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend to affect the region or nation more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. He has also not shown that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong ofthe Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive ofthe 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); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&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 met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.