The Petitioner requests classification under the 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).
SCOPS denied the petition, concluding that, although the Petitioner qualified for the classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, the Petitioner had not established 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. 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 SCOPS' decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision.
Law
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 classification, a petitioner must establish that he or she is either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Because this classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest.
We set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884,889 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus the labor certification, under the EB-2 classification if the petitioner demonstrates that:
- The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance;
- The individual is well-positioned to advance his or her proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs.
Analysis
SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The record supports that conclusion. The remaining issue to be determined on appeal 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 will remand this matter for the entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis.
A. The Proposed Endeavor
The Petitioner is a research scientist who has worked at several technology companies and who is currently employed by a multinational technology company headquartered in the United States. The Petitioner initially described his proposed endeavor as an intention to continue his employment with the company and to continue his research. He provided the following explanation of his work: As an expert in the field of computer engineering, [the Petitioner's] proposed endeavor is to continue his development of innovative methods that enhance the interactions between humans and digital platforms in order to support applications such as smart agents, social robots, and intelligent systems.
[The Petitioner's] research advancing his proposed endeavor is of great importance because it improves the function and adaptivity of human-computer interactions.
Conventionally, intelligent systems such as speech interfaces have reactive capabilities. Since current interfaces are primarily reactive, proactive interactions are not typically initiated, limiting the effectiveness of human-digital platform interactions .... One of the many consequences of this limitation[:] systems that exhibit only reactive behavior are incapable of adapting to unforeseen challenges. By eschewing proactivity, such systems fail to engage in predictive activities and lack long-term goal-oriented focuses. It is imperative that advanced artificial intelligence algorithms are created in order to improve the adaptivity, reliability, and performance of robotic assistants, speech interfaces, and other human-computer interaction systems . . . . [T]hrough his development of state-of-the-art machine learning-based modeling techniques, has fulfilled this need. His novel predictive algorithms allow users to experience natural and proactive interactions with intelligent systems.
Among other benefits, his work promotes the development of advanced applications ranging from virtual automotive assistants to social robot-assisted technologies.
Robot-assisted feeding, for instance, is a particularly important area of interest in the United Stats, where, due to motor impairments, upwards of 1.8 million people are unable to eat without assistance. While robot-assisted feeding technologies allow disabled users to eat independently, they are not designed to function during social dining situations . . . . As a result, there is a clear need for assistive robots that adapt to social scenarios in order to improve user experiences. Similar issues plague automotive speech agents, as vehicular voice interfaces are known to suffer from inefficiencies that impact usability . . . . [The Petitioner] has designed modeling tools that accurately predict user attention and timing. His contributions ensure that applications such as robot-assisted dining technologies and in-vehicle interfaces function appropriately and effectively.
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor
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. SCOPS determined the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor had substantial merit. We agree.
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor may have national importance because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as improved manufacturing processes. Id. If the evidence of record demonstrates that an individual's proposed endeavor has the significant potential to, for example, contribute to the advancement of a valuable technology or field of study, it may rise to the level of national importance. 2 Regarding an endeavor in the fields of science, technology, engineering, or math-also known as 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. 3
SCOPS concluded that the record did not establish that the endeavor is of national importance, stating that the record did not include information about his specific proposed endeavor and that the Petitioner did not provide supporting substantive evidence to support his assertions. SCOPS stated that the Petitioner did not explain how his "entrance into a market of the magnitude described would have positive implications for that market or the field at large," surmising that the "size of the market itself ... would not support that [his] endeavor would have a national impact."No broader implications shown Concerning any potential economic impacts of the proposed endeavor, SCOPS concluded that the record did not demonstrate that his endeavor would have an impact beyond his employer or in the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS did not provide analysis concerning arguments and evidence he put forth to support the national importance of his endeavor. The Petitioner points to letters of support providing detailed descriptions of his work, such as his development of an algorithmic model that can "efficiently detect time-based data anomalies while adapting to unique patterns and optimizing performance," the implications of which include its capability for "utiliz[ ation] in infrastructure monitoring technologies, financial systems, cybersecurity platforms, and other real-world applications."
The Petitioner initially submitted evidence to support his assertion that his work has applications in advancing artificial intelligence, human-machine interfaces, and sensor processing and data fusion, as well as evidence showing that these technologies have been identified by the National Science and Technology Council as critical and emerging. 4 SCOPS, however, did not indicate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would prospectively have a broader societal impact by contributing to critical and emerging technologies in the STEM field of computer science and the development and advancement of assistive technologies. SCOPS did not discuss whether the proposed endeavor would help the United States stay ahead of strategic competitors and potential adversaries, nor did SCOPS discuss whether the endeavor would contribute to our nation achieving or maintaining technology leadership or peer status among allies and partners.
We note that, beyond a summary of the Petitioner's endeavor and a list of evidence submitted, the denial contains few references to the evidence submitted. The denial does not include an analysis of the evidence submitted or provide the reasoning behind SCOPS' conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor.
An officer's written decision must fully explain the specific reasons for denial. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). When a decision does not meet these requirements, the petitioner does not have a fair opportunity to contest the decision on appeal. See Matter of M-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).
Accordingly, we withdraw SCOPS' determination as to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. On remand, SCOPS should analyze the issue ofnational importance consistent with the foregoing analysis.
C. Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether an individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to 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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
SCOPS determined that, after consideration of these factors, the evidence submitted did not establish that the Petitioner meets Dhanasar 's second prong.
The Petitioner received a Ph.D. in electrical and computer engineering from I For purposes of assessment under the second prong, an individual's education and skillset are relevant to whether the person is well-positioned to advance the endeavor. USCIS considers an advanced degree in a STEM field-one which is tied to the proposed endeavor and related to work furthering a STEM area important to U.S. competitiveness or national security-an especially positive factor to be considered along with other evidence. 5 In addition to his academic records, the record includes evidence of the Petitioner's published and presented peer-reviewed conference papers, as well letters from third-party experts in computer science explaining the significance of publication in top conference proceedings in the field. The record also includes evidence ofthe Petitioner's citation rate in studies by independent researchers in the United States and abroad. The record further includes detailed letters of support from experts in the field discussing his research to demonstrate progress he has made in pursuing his proposed endeavor, including his work constructing robot-assisted feeding systems and advancing predictive automotive speech interface models.
SCOPS did not analyze how the Petitioner's qualifications position him to advance his proposed endeavor in a specific STEM field-particularly his knowledge in a narrow STEM area involving the development of algorithmic models to anticipate anomalies in human-to-technology interactions. SCOPS' decision does not address any ofthe specific information provided concerning the Petitioner's proposed national endeavor or his positioning to advance it. SCOPS states, for example, that not every individual who has performed original research will be found to be well-positioned to advance their proposed research. Without further analysis, SCOPS then states that while the record demonstrates that the Petitioner has "conducted and published some research during [his] career," he has not shown that his "work has affected research practices, or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the broader community." SCOPS' conclusory statement here is not accompanied by any reference to deficiencies in the record discussing the impacts of the Petitioner's work on the research of others in his field.
Again, an officer's written decision must fully explain the specific reasons for denial. 6 Accordingly, we withdraw SCOPS' determination as to whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. On remand, SCOPS should analyze the issue of the Petitioner's positioning to advance his proposed endeavor in a STEM field consistent with the foregoing analysis.
D. 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. 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 that individual 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 the individual's contributions; and whether 5 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(4).
the national interest in those contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factors considered must, taken together, 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. Dhanasar at 890-91.
The Petitioner asserts that he is eligible under the third prong of Dhanasar and indicates that his proposed endeavor is focused on a critical and emerging technology in a STEM field. The USCIS Policy Manual outlines specific evidentiary considerations relating to STEM degrees and fields, including with respect to evaluating eligibility under the third prong. When evaluating the third prong and whether the United States may benefit from a person's entry, regardless of whether other U.S. workers are available, the USCIS Policy Manual instructs us to consider the following combination of facts contained in a record as a strong positive factor:
- The person possesses an advanced STEM degree;
- The person will be engaged in work furthering a critical and emerging technology or other STEM area important to U.S. competitiveness; and
- The person is well positioned to advance the proposed STEM endeavor of national importance.
The benefit to the United States is considered especially weighty where the endeavor has the potential to support U.S. national security or enhance U.S. economic competitiveness, or when the petition is supported by letters from interested U.S. government agencies. 7 In determining the Petitioner's eligibility with respect to the third prong of Dhanasar, SCOPS stated the following:Support letters generic or unsupported
General assertions that the petitioner's work has influence in this field [do] not persuasively show that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive requirements of a job offer and thus waive the labor certification. The vague and generalized descriptions provided are of limited evidentiary value. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements.
SCOPS' summation here does not identify any statements, assertions, or descriptions presented by the Petitioner in the record that are unpersuasive, vague, generalized, conclusory, or merely repetitive of language in statute or regulations. SCOPS' discussion of the third prong does not address the USCIS Policy Manual with respect to an individual's eligibility based on a proposed endeavor involving the advancement of a critical and emerging technology in a STEM field-namely, those factors we have discussed in the bullet points above. Accordingly, we withdraw SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish that he meets Dhanasar's third prong. On remand, SCOPS should consider this guidance in its determination on the third prong ofDhanasar. 8
Conclusion
We will remand the matter to SCOPS for the entry of a new decision. 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 on remand.
ORDER: SCOPS' decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis.