dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Machine Learning

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 04, 2025 In Re: 35664074 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a machine learning engineer, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor or 
that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements ofjob offer and 
thus of a labor certification. 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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. 
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 (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; 
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 SCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature) . 
• 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 Petitioner, a senior machine learning engineer for I I proposes "to continue his work in 
computer science and engineering research and their practical application through studies in software 
engineering, machine learning, and deep learning, allowing new provisions of laboratory technology 
to the science community and IT and E-commerce industries." The Petitioner specifies he intends to 
pursue research projects, including: "optimizing novel search and unified browsel I 
"developing al Ifor real-time bidding in the digital advertising context," and "exploring 
new recommendation model architecture to support better core advertising models for I I and 
the broader e-commerce industry with the objective of developing better AI and ML models with 
practical applications for the U.S. e-commerce and digital advertising industries." 
The Director determined that though the Petitioner has demonstrated he is well-positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor, he has not established the national importance of the endeavor or that, on 
balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit 
may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, 
culture, health, or education. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. In Dhanasar, we 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 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts I I development of machine learning models in digital 
advertising "drives increased sales and growth in the overall e-commerce industry" and "advances for 
the machine learning, data science, e-commerce, and digital advertising industries." The Petitioner 
contends his endeavor merits specific evidentiary consideration as it supports government initiatives 
and seeks to advance STEM technologies and research, including machine learning and data science 
research in the fields of e-commerce and digital advertising. We recognize the value of such 
technological innovations and the importance of emerging technologies; however, merely working in 
an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The 
relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the Petitioner may 
work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 
Dhanasar at 889. 
2 
Here, the Petitioner is a senior machine learning engineer for I I The Petitioner asserts his 
endeavors "will be supported by his employer, I I which has provided him with all of the 
necessary funding, equipment, computational power, and first-party customer datasets to develop and 
train his models." The Petitioner contends he plans to publish his "ongoing and future research 
activities in preprints, journal articles, and industry conferences," while "incorporating his models into 
thel Iservice," used by retailers, businesses, and brands. The Petitioner indicates the use 
ofl "benefits the interests of U.S. small businesses and retailers who will gain more sales, 
customers, and profits from more efficient digital advertising." 
The Petitioner's supervisor notes the Petitioner's three current projects, specifying the Petitioner is 
working on: 1) "multiple search and unified browse I I that together influence over 90% 
ofl lad traffic," and "accounting for over 60% of the company's total ads revenue," 2) 
"working on the development of a model that can predict conversion rates to optimize return on ad 
spend (ROAS) for advertisers, making our platform more attractive and leading to increased advertiser 
budget and revenue, and 3) "engaging in new model architecture exploration," which "can yield 
significant revenue increases ( estimated at $20 million annually) by enhancing core advertising 
models across the company." Although the Petitioner's supervisor, like the Petitioner, asserts the 
Petitioner's work is of national interest "considering the numerous existing and prospective practical 
applications of [Petitioner's] machine learning models in advertising and e-commerce," he only details 
the benefit and application of the Petitioner's work to their common employer, I I The 
Petitioner, as stated above, has claimed his work would be disseminated beyond its use in I I 
service, through "preprints, journal articles, and industry conferences." However,! lis a 
private company and there is no assertion froml Iincluding in the Petitioner's supervisor's 
submission, that it would support the Petitioner's public dissemination of his work product. I I 
applied for patents, including the Petitioner as one co-inventor, and issued an article related to its deep 
learning ___________ But it is not apparent thatI I internal research 
findings would be made publicly available rather than maintained by I I as proprietary 
information. It is noted the record does not contain information related to preprints, journal articles, 
or industry conferences for the Petitioner following his employment with I I in 2020. And 
record letters of recommendation indicate the Petitioner's work "has significantly advanced the study 
of machine learning atl land has been implemented by !engineers. Meanwhile, the 
letters of recommendation generally asserting the Petitioner's 2019 research paper and subsequent 
patents have been broadly implemented do not detail how extensively and the way in which the 
patents, specifically, have been applied outside ofl I Similarly, these letters do not specify how 
the Petitioner's current proposed endeavor will advance the relevant fields outside ofI I and
I I clients. Overall, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated his endeavor will extend 
beyond his employer's interests and retail clients in a manner that has national or global impact in the 
relevant field, or broader implications arising from the endeavor at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
3 
I 
The Petitioner asserts his "machine learning models and data analytics tools has a significant positive 
impact on the U.S. economy, specifically "the growth of U.S. small businesses, digital 
marketing/advertising, the overall $285.224 billion-dollar e-commerce industry, and the $1.1 trillion­
dollar grocery industry." The Petitioner specifies companies who have partnered withl 
"see a more than 15% sales increase from ads and over 30% average sales increase for produce 
advertisers." However, while any economic activity has the potential to positively impact the 
economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this potential economic activity is a direct result of 
his endeavor. Overall, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated his proposed endeavor has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects, 
beyond his employer and the clients served by his employer, such that it would have broader 
implications for the United States. 
B. Additional Dhanasar Prongs and Ineligibility 
As our finding on this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and reserve 
whether the Petitioner has met the additional prongs of 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 
conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4