dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 27, 2024 In Re: 34751613 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a research scientist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as amember of the professions holding an advanced degree, as wel I as anational 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant 
this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the 
national interest to do so. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term 
"national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver pet1t1ons. Dhanasar states 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree. 2 The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner established 
that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. The Director determined that while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, he did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Upon de nova review, we agree with the 
Director's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a waiver of the labor certification 
would be in the national interest. 3 
The Petitioner has been employed as a research scientist at ________ since 2021. 
In his initial petition, he stated that he proposes "to continue his research on developing optimization 
algorithms by applying mathematical modeling, machine learning, and data analytics in order to 
improve the performance of online platforms in the healthcare and computer systems domains." 
Specifically, he intends to "design and implement large-scale distributed software systems capable of 
handling complex requests simultaneously without failure and publish original artificial intelligence 
research in peer-reviewed journal articles." The Petitioner points out that while his research is separate 
from his employment, he plans to continue his employment "to confirm his commitment and capacity 
to advance his proposed endeavor." 
To clarify his proposed endeavor, his reply to a request for evidence included a proposed endeavor 
statement and a letter from verifying his employment. The Petitioner's statement explains that 
he "aim[s] to utilize optimization and simulation techniques, in conjunction with privacy-enhancing 
methods, to actively develop and refine models that address issues of efficiency, accuracy, reliability, 
security, and privacy in the domains of computer systems/tech industries and healthcare infomatics." 
The letter from uses almost identical language to describe the Petitioner's work and adds, "[t]his 
endeavor aligns with the one mentioned in his petition letter." 
The Petitioner's statement also indicates that he "is currently carrying out this research at 
where he is developing private enhancing technology applications." While his research ate=:J 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in 
concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 To qualify for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner submitted his diploma 
and academic transcript for his doctor of philosophy in industrial and systems engineering from I 
The Petitioner has established he is an advanced degree professional. 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
I 
includes "innovative and cutting-edge research in the hybrid fields of private enhancing technologies, 
big data, and machine learning," 50% of his responsibilities involve "the development and refinement 
of private enhancing technology application in the digital ads domain, which have demonstrable 
national importance due to their implication for protecting user and data privacy while generating 
meaningful results for advertisers." For his long-term career, he aims to sustain "leadership and 
innovation within the fusion of [artificial intelligence, machine learning] and data privacy" while 
"contributing to the United States' technological supremacy and addressing pressing national 
challenges." In addition, he would disseminate his findings in scholarly journals, present at 
international conferences, and engage with the research community. By doing so, he states his work 
would have visibility beyond his employment. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. Id. When analyzing the 
national importance of a petitioner's proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's framework, we focus on 
the prospective impact of the proposed endeavor, instead of limiting our analysis to a petitioner's 
employment at the time of filing. An endeavor is more specific than a general occupation and should 
include details of the types of work a petitioner intends to undertake and describe specific projects and 
goals. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov /policy -manual. 
The Director found that while the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner 
did not establish it is of national importance. The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director erred 
by assuming the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and his employment are the same, maintaining they 
are not the same. The Petitioner claims that his "proposed endeavor is not to work as a [r]esearch 
[s]cientist" and that the Director created his proposed endeavor is his employment. Citing Buletini v. 
INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994), the Petitioner claims the Director did not appropriately 
apply the law to the facts of this petition, which is an abuse of discretion. 
To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance of the evidence 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376.; see also Matter of E­
M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79- 80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, we disagree with the Petitioner's assessment of 
the Director's decision. The Director acknowledged and analyzed documents submitted, specifically 
the Petitioner's statements, articles, reports, and recommendation letters, to evaluate the substantial 
merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor. Pointing out that having a job offer is not 
necessary for a national interest waiver, the Director considered the Petitioner's prospective 
employment to understand the capacity of his intended endeavor. Based on the record, the Director's 
decision is a reasoned interpretation and consideration of the evidence. The proposed endeavor, as 
described, and the evidence in the record do not support the Petitioner's assertions that the potential 
impact of his endeavor extends beyond his employer to have a broader impact. Upon de nova review, 
we agree with the Director that the proposed endeavor, whilst substantially meritorious, does not have 
potential prospective national or even global impact to his field, or broader implications rising to a 
level of national importance. 
The Petitioner articulated that he intends to continue working with his employer as a research scientist, 
providing his statement and a letter from his employer, both of which use identical language explaining 
his endeavor and his employment work, and emphasizing projects the Petitioner has contributed to 
3 
while working for his employer. In other words, the Petitioner does not sufficiently separate the goals 
and objectives of his proposed endeavor from the goals and objectives that an employer or entity 
seeking out his services would expect. For example, the Petitioner generally explains his proposed 
research would focus on developing optimization algorithms to improve the performance of online 
platforms in the healthcare and computer systems domains and that he intends to publish and present 
his research findings. He claims that his research in developing and refining privacy enhancing 
technology applications in digital ads have national importance because it would protect user and data 
privacy while generating meaningful results for advertisers. The Petitioner, however, does not 
adequately shed light on how the research, development, and refinement of algorithms to improve the 
privacy performance of online platforms would extend beyond the entities in healthcare and computer 
systems domains seeking out those services. 
Next, the Petitioner takes issue with the Director pointing out that he did not provide evidence 
indicating his "services and skills are of a different or of a high caliber than services currently offered 
in the United States" or that his "services, procedures, or techniques are unusual or novel, or that he is 
offering a service that will impact the industry more broadly." The Petitioner maintains such 
statements are irrelevant to determining whether his proposed endeavor is of national importance, 
instead relate to his qualifications and whether he is well-positioned to advance his endeavor under 
Dhanasar 's second prong. 
While the Petitioner's qualifications are relevant to whether he is well-positioned to advance his 
endeavor, the Director's analysis is referring to the Petitioner's proposed research work in his field, 
which is relevant to national importance. For instance, the record contains a short description of two 
research projects; however, his descriptions are not sufficiently detailed to understand and 
meaningfully consider whether his proposed endeavor is of national importance. For the first project, 
the Petitioner indicates an issue with multi-party computation framework and provides a brief 
sentence, "we aim to compile a given application into primitives and have them transformed to an 
Intermediate Representation so that we are able to generate computation structures at compile time 
instead of determining at runtime." For this project, the Petitioner briefly references research articles 
from other researchers but does not detai I the significance of the research articles or their relevance to 
his proposed research. 
For his second project, the Petitioner intends to research I I models for patient privacy, "[t]o 
protect patient's privacy, we propose differential private algorithms with an application to I I 
model calibration." He goes on to explain having two approaches for achieving differential privacy, 
but does not clearly detail the proposed research, instead offering general statements as to the 
conclusion for the research, "we conclude that differential privacy algorithms have applications in 
protecting patient's privacy, while the 'aggregated' statistics are still meaningful." The language used 
by the Petitioner does not clearly detail his proposed endeavor and how he plans to carry out his 
research so that we can determine whether it is of national importance. Whilst the activities and 
research described in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor may add to a positive cumulative effect, the 
evidence in the record does not convincingly demonstrate that his activities and research have national 
or even global impact in his field, or broader implications rising to a level of national importance. 
In addition, the letter from references the importance of the Petitioner's work stating, "[the 
Petitioner's] current work involves building new and innovative attribution models to further improve 
4 
.c=]ads stack, with his work being "crucial to our organization and the industry as a whole." While 
letter names two projects the Petitioner has contributed to, it does not detail how the projects 
have national or global impact to the field or broader implications beyond its immediate influence to 
his employer and their clients. 
As a comparison, the petitioner in Dhanasar demonstrated that he conducted research and 
development in the field of air and space propulsion, more specifically, hypersonic propulsion systems 
involving speeds above Mach 5, and he had developed a novel method for accurately calculating 
hypersonic airflow. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 891-92. In addition, he submitted evidence 
reflecting that he would continue his research into designing and developing propulsion systems in 
nano-satellites, rocket-propelled ballistic missiles, and single-stage-to-orbit vehicles and substantial 
supporting evidence to support how his continued research would assist the United States in 
maintaining its advantage over other nations in hypersonic flight, including supporting documentation 
reflecting his receipt of funding from a government entity for his research. Id. 
Here, the Petitioner has not provided this level of focus or documentation to support his claims that 
his proposed research developing and refining privacy enhancing technology in digital advertising has 
the potential to impact the fields of healthcare, artificial intelligence, or machine learning, or other 
fields and industries. Instead, the Petitioner's evidence relating to the national importance of his 
intended research mostly explains his previous research and the importance of artificial intelligence, 
machine learning, and technology. While demonstrating the substantial merit of the proposed 
endeavor, it does not support or demonstrate its prospective potential impact nationally, or even 
globally, or through broader implications rising to a level of national importance. 
The record also includes recommendation letters from colleagues who are familiar with his previous 
research, relating his is development of modeling systems for HIV viral load monitoring and his 
development of modeling transmission rates for the COVI D-19 outbreak. His colleagues in the field 
focus on the Petitioner's previous research being useful to their research with general statements that 
the Petitioner's contributions in his field would be of value to the United States. However, the letters 
do not identify or address his specific proposed endeavor. Moreover, the Petitioner has not explained 
the relevance of his previous research to his proposed research, refining optimization algorithms to 
improve performance and data privacy in digital advertising. We may, in our discretion, use advisory 
opinion statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in 
evidence as expert testimony. However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or 
is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. See 
Matter ofCaron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). 
Last, the Petitioner claims that the Director's decision is contrary to national initiatives and USCIS 
policy guidance recognizing the importance of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and progress 
in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). While USCIS recognizes 
specific evidentiary considerations relating to STEM degrees and fields, "the evidence must 
demonstrate that aSTEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance." See generally 
6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(0)(2). The Petitioner maintains that his endeavor involves 
research to advance STEM technologies, in particular artificial intelligence and machine learning 
technologies which are recognized by the U.S. National Science and Technology Council as being 
critical and emerging. 
5 
We recognize the overall value of the technology industry, attracting qualified professionals in related 
careers, and strengthening our nation's technology, particularly technology recognized as critical and 
emerging, but their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor in particular. See id. The Petitioner has not sufficiently detailed his proposed 
research to understand how it would advance STEM technologies with sufficiently broad potential 
implications for his field rising to the level of national importance. Moreover, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that his specific undertaking of working as a research scientist for a U.S. company and 
conducting research developing and refining privacy enhancing technology in digital advertising 
stands to have an impact beyond his potential employer, its advertisers, and clients, or that his proposed 
research work would otherwise have broader implications for the technology industry, U.S.technology 
national initiatives, or other industries. 
Based on the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that he presented a specific 
proposed endeavor for his intended research for developing optimization algorithms to improve the 
performance of online platforms in the healthcare and computer systems domains, as contemplated 
under Dhanasar. The record does not contain distinct, detailed information explaining the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor for conducting research in his field. He did not elaborate and articulate the research 
in sufficient detail for us to meaningfully consider whether it is of national importance. As noted by 
the Director, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to have a 
potential prospective impact beyond his prospective employers and clients. As such, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor would have the potential impact or implications 
commensurate with matters of national importance. 
The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not establish that he is well-positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong, or 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 
under Dhanasar's third prong. Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish 
the Petitioner qualifies for the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not demonstrated 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. This identified basis for dismissal is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, and therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments and eligibility under the second and third prongs of Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6