dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Data Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 22, 2024 In Re: 34771156 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a data scientist, 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). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proposed endeavor was of national importance, the Petitioner is well positioned to 
advance the endeavor, or that it would be beneficial to waive the requirements of a job offer. The 
matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof 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. 
I. 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. 
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 (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. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Director found that the Beneficiary 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, upon de novo review, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of the 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 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. 
The appeal brief states that the Beneficiary works at the Petitioner's company as a Senior Data 
Scientist. In this position she has a variety of responsibilities. She develops and helps other teams 
implement models to identify and effectively engage high intent users. She also uses data to make 
forecasts, interpret trends and patterns, construct recommendations, and analyze business problems 
and potential strategies. In particular, the petition notes the Beneficiary's work with I I 
I I where she has developed a model which determines a customer's likelihood of using mortgage 
services within the next four months, which gives employees "a systematic method for nurturing leads 
and efficiently directing them to loan officers," while combating biases in artificial intelligence. The 
evidence provided does establish that the proposed endeavor is of substantial merit. However, it does 
not demonstrate that the specific endeavor is of national importance. 
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 T&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a ]n undertaking 
may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
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 the proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence 
documenting the potential prospective impact of the Beneficiary's 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. 
Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established how the Beneficiary's position will have a broader 
impact on the field beyond the Petitioner's company and customers, 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. We observe that the functions described in the record show that her work helps 
the Petitioner's operations by using data and artificial intelligence to improve operations. 
Nevertheless, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Beneficiary as a single employee 
would affect the home loan or the artificial intelligence and machine learning fields more broadly 
beyond the Petitioner. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
In their appeal brief, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's contribrutions to 
should be "sufficient" to establish national importance as the "impact of AI and technological 
endeavors should be clear as the company has the largest! Inationwide." This 
argument is flawed. While the Petitioner may be the largest it does not follow that 
it is also the largest home loan provider. In any event, the Petitioner cannot rely on its market share 
alone to claim the Beneficiary's work is nationally important. They must show how the functions and 
tasks carried out by the Beneficimy coalesce into a nationally important endeavor. 
We acknowledge that the Beneficiary's work touches upon many important fields, like artificial 
intelligence in the mortgage field. However, the record as presented does not sufficiently establish 
that the work the Beneficiary does with the Petitioner will have a significant impact beyond the 
Petitioner's company and its customers to have a nationally important impact on the field. 2 The 
Petitioner provided a number of articles, reports, publications from the Petitioner, and letters of 
recommendation. Many of the articles and reports3 provide background on the field or explain the 
field's importance. The importance of the field does not determine the proposed endeavor's national 
importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Furthermore, though these articles and reports 
provide helpful background information, they are of little evidentiary value to the issue of national 
importance. This is because they do not address the Beneficiary's specific work. 
The publications from and regarding the Petitioner discuss their work at large, with artificial 
intelligence, and with home loans. While these articles show the existence of the Petitioner's home 
loan business and various business statistics, they do not adequately establish that the Beneficiary's 
work will extend beyond the Petitioner's customers. For example, one article discusses the issues in 
navigating fair housing rules in large language models and how the Petitioner is working to train its 
systems "rendering them safe for [their] users." It does briefly note that the Petitioner is "exploring 
the possibility of open sourcing [their] classifier and the supporting data," but does not provide further 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 One of the articles. which discuss the Petitioner's use of artificial intelligence was published after the filing of the petition. 
A petitioner must meet all of the eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), ( 12). 
3 
detail. Without more, the article's language denotes the limitation of the Beneficiary's work to the 
Petitioner's customers. There is not enough to establish that the work of the Petitioner will have a 
nationally important impact on the field. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
The Petitioner also presented a number of letters of support for the Beneficiary. Many of these letters 
largely discuss the Petitioner's skills and background, which is more appropriate for the second prong 
when determining if the beneficiary is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 890. Others discuss the Beneficiary's work with the Petitioner but do not provide 
sufficient basis for their claims. For instance, in one letter from a coworker, the writer states that the 
Beneficiary's work with the Petitioner has led to a "noticeable upsurge in activity across the housing 
market." The letter also avers that the Beneficiary's work has "measurably enhanced market vitality." 
Yet the writer does not provide further explanation or basis for these claims beyond these sentences. 
Contentions require support to underpin them, as assertions themselves do not constitute evidence. 
See, e.g., Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998) ("statements in a brief, motion, or Notice 
of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight"). Without more 
documentation supporting the assertions, there is not enough in the record to establish national 
importance by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
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 proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond the Petitioner to affect the field more 
broadly. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. For the reasons given above, we find that the record does 
not demonstrate national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the 
Dhanasar precedent decision and has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
As 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 Dhanasar framework. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that they have not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4