The Petitioner 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 l 53(b )(2).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, he did not establish the national importance of his endeavor under prong one or his eligibility under prong three of the Dhanasar analytical framework for a discretionary 1 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) ( establishing a three-pronged analytical framework for a national interest waiver). 2 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 ofChristo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
At the outset, we agree with SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional within the meaning of section 203(b)(2) of the Act and that he met prong two of the Dhanasar analytical framework, where we consider whether a petitioner is well-positioned to advance 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 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature).
his proposed endeavor. We also agree with SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner has established the substantial merit ofhis proposed endeavor under prong one ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework. However, we adopt and affirm SCOPS's decision relating to national importance under prong one of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below "is not only common practice, but universally accepted").
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as a senior software engineer at a company (like Oracle Health, Amazon Web Services or similar company) and develo state-of-the-art enerative artificial intelli ence models. 3 The Petitioner lans to a 1 his ensuring faster convergence and enabling domain-specific AI models to achieve high performance with reduced computational complexity." The Petitioner asserts that hisl Iframework will be an open source for startups and academic institutions to leverage "without the need for extensive computational resources" and use to develop "cost-effective, scalable AI solutions, accelerating progress in finance, healthcare, and smart transportation."
SCOPS summarized the Petitioner's evidence and analyzed why it did not establish his eligibility for a national interest waiver under prong one. In so doing, SCOPS considered USCIS' STEM policy4 in the context of national interest waivers but determined that "STEM activities which do not impact a field more broadly are not of national importance." SCOPS also addressed the Petitioner's assertions regarding his profession's inclusion in the "Critical and Emerging Technologies List Update" but concluded that because there were no letters from interested U.S. government agencies or quasigovernmental entities in the United States to support his assertion that his proposed endeavor promises to "advance a critical and emerging technology or is otherwise important for purposes of maintaining the United States' technological prominence," he had not demonstrated his endeavor's national importance. SCOPS also considered and analyzed industry reports and articles submitted by the Petitioner to establish that his field, machine learning and artificial intelligence, are areas of national importance, but determined that although these subjects are important to the economy, the Petitioner had not established how his particular employment in this field would rise to the level of national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar. In sum, SCOPS acknowledged that while his endeavor could be valuable to his employer, the evidence was insufficient to establish that it would impact his field or our economy more broadly and was thus insufficient to be considered of national importance. SCOPS issued two requests for additional evidence (RFE) in this matter. In the first RFE, SCOPS noted that the Petitioner had "established the field of endeavor has substantial merit and national interest" and further determined the "petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor" under the second Dhanasar prong. The RFE notified the Petitioner that the evidence was insufficient to establish that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a 3 On appeal, the Petitioner asse1is SCOPS ened by failing to mention his cunent employer.____________.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification We disagree with this assertion. The Petitioner asserts his proposed endeavor will have applications for various fields including healthcare, finance, autonomous driving technology, among others. As such, the Petitioner asserts that the endeavor has implications in various fields, and SCOPS failure to includ~in the decision does not change the analysis of his endeavor's national importance.
See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(D)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual ("Specific Evidentiary Considerations for Persons with Advance Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics (STEM) Fields.") p. 3 job offer and thus of a labor certification under prong three ofthe Dhanasar framework. In the second RFE, SCOPS laid out Dhanasar 's three-pronged analytical framework and determined that while the Petitioner had established the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor, he had not established how his work as a senior software engineer was of national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar.
SCOPS' second RFE provided him with an opportunity to submit additional evidence to establish his endeavor's national importance. The second RFE farther notified the Petitioner that he had met the requirements under Dhanasar 's second prong and that even after considering the additional evidence submitted in response to the first RFE, the Petitioner had failed to establish that on balance, a waiver of the job offer and labor certification requirement, was in the United States' national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS erred when it issued the second RFE because it did not provide a substantive reason for changing the national importance analysis. We disagree with the Petitioner's characterization. SCOPS' first RFE named an incorrect standard for Dhanasar's prong one analysis ("national interest" versus national importance). The USCIS Policy Manual states that "[i]n certain instances, the evidence provided in response to an RFE may raise eligibility questions that the officer did not identify during initial case review or open new lines of inquiry. In such a case, the officer may issue a follow-up RFE or NOID." See generally I USCIS Policy Manual E.6(F)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Here, SCOPS properly identified the correct standard in its second RFE. The Petitioner was given notice ofthe deficiency and provided an opportunity to respond with additional evidence to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor, thus complying with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(iii). As such, the Petitioner's assertion that the issuance of a second RFE constitutes abuse of discretion is not supported by the record in this matter.
On appeal, the Petitioner also claims SCOPS held him to a higher than preponderance of the evidence standard and ignored probative evidence. In particular, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS failed to consider his endeavor is on the authoritative list of critical and emerging technologies (CET), which contributes to U.S. competitiveness, and that the letters from four experts supporting his petition were ignored. The Petitioner highlights one expert's description of his work's impact on license plate recognition systems; the letter states that the systems have national security implications, provide a global competitive advantage to the United States, improve the safety of U.S. citizens, and improve efficiency in the overall system. The Petitioner also highlights statistics related to the importance of AI technologies in the U.S.' s healthcare system because they will save 5-10% on healthcare spending. The Petitioner also highlights his work on05 to demonstrate how his contributions to AI and machine learning technologies can lead to a broader impact on an industry (in that case, the finance industry). Finally, he asserts that his collaboration with leading researchers in the field as well as his citation record indicate that his research is of national or global importance in his field.
In our de novo review, we have considered the Petitioner's assertions. Here, SCOPS properly considered the Petitioner's evidence submitted in support of his endeavor's national importance and 5 In the second RFE. SCOPS noted that due to "poor printing or transfer through the USCIS systems" the Petitioner was unable to substantiate his claim that he had pioneered the projectD The blurry quality of the scanned documents relating tce=)mpacts the probative ~fthis evidence. In response to the second RFE, the Petitioner resubmitted a page with general information aboutl__J which does not mention his contributions to its development but instead describes what the pro~. The Petitioner also submitted a page purporng f° show that he contributed "46 commits 12,638 ++ 7,175 -" tcL_Jhowever this page does not appear related to and does not clearly explain what these contributions mean to its development. p. 4 correctly analyzed and explained deficiencies in the record. Thus, we conclude the Petitioner was held to the proper preponderance of the evidence standard and SCOPS sufficiently considered the expert letters submitted on his behalf: as well as his assertions as to his endeavor's impact on the fields of AI and machine learning. Further, SCOPS correctly noted that under the Dhanasar framework, it is not the importance of the field but the specific proposed endeavor that is relevant. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. And, finally, as stated above, SCOPS evaluated the proposed endeavor with respect to our STEM guidance and the inclusion of the software engineering field in the CET list but determined that it was insufficient to establish national importance because there was no evidence of interest in his proposed endeavor from U.S. government agencies or quasigovernmental entities.No interest from users, customers or investors In addition to SCOPS' analysis, we note that expert letters are advisory in nature. SeeMatterofCaronint'l, Inc., 18 I&NDec. 791,795 (Comm'r 1988) (statingthatUSCIS "is responsible for making the final determination regarding a beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit sought."). Thus, we agree with SCOPS that the letters are relevant to and help establish the endeavor's substantial merit under prong one of the Dhanasar framework, they are insufficient to establish its national importance. 6
As stated, we adopt and affirm SCOPS' decision regarding the Petitioner's eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the third prong ofthe Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision).
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. § 103.5(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.