dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Machine Learning

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 05, 2025 In Re: 34798228 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a language testing researcher and 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 denied the Petitioner's Form 1-140, Immigrant 
Petition for Alien Workers, concluding that the Petitioner established his underlying eligibility for 
EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, but that he did not establish he merited a 
national interest waiver. 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo '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 l&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; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The Director determined that the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional and therefore qualifies 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. Thus, the remaining issue 
to be determined is whether the 
Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit as required to 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. However, 
the Director denied the waiver, concluding that the Petitioner had not established that he met the three 
Dhanasar prongs, namely that his proposed endeavor was nationally important, that he was well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and that on balance, waiving the job offer requirement 
would benefit the United States. Id. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in its 
conclusion, and that he meets all three of the Dhanasar prongs and merits a national interest waiver. 
With regard to national importance, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overemphasized whether 
his proposed endeavor would produce positive economic effects. He further claims that the record 
nonetheless contains sufficient evidence of the economic impact of his proposed endeavor and that the 
Director overlooked evidence in his personal statement and in a letter of recommendation from his 
employer in evaluating the proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact to determine its national 
importance. With regard to whether he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, he claims 
the Director did not fully consider the evidence he provided and that the record is sufficient to establish 
he meets this requirement. 
The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit. For the reasons explained below, however, the Petitioner has not established the 
national importance of his endeavor or that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor 
and therefore has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, regarding 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. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor 
has national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in 
which the individual will work; instead, we consider the proposed endeavor's "potential prospective 
impact," and "look for broader implications." As noted in Dhanasar, "[a]n undertaking may have 
national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular 
field." Id. Further, "[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. 
2 
The Petitioner provided, in part, personal statements wherein he stated he is currently employed at a 
company that conducts language testing, that he intends to continue working for that company, and 
that the company is providing him with the necessary resources to pursue his research. He further 
explained that he is a machine learning engineer who proposes to design and evaluate computer­
mediated tests to evaluate language abilities with his current company, as well as publish the results 
of his work in peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Notably, the Petitioner stated 
that "[f]or the foreseeable future I will continue pursuing my proposed endeavor as a machine learning 
engineer at [his current company]." He claims that his research would be circulated in the field through 
peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations and also states that his research would be 
promoted through the company's business channels, outreach, partnerships, and research foundation, 
reflecting that his research would benefit his company as a saleable product for its clients. In response 
to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner clarified that his proposed endeavor was to continue his 
research on implementing artificial intelligence (AI) in language ability testing and that his company 
is providing him with the necessary resources to pursue his research. The Petitioner's statements, 
however, do not sufficiently demonstrate how his endeavor will extend beyond his current employing 
company's interests and specific clientele in a manner that has national or global impact in the field 
of language testing or broader implications arising from the endeavor at a level commensurate with 
national importance. 
The limited scope of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is corroborated by the vice president of his 
company who stated that the Petitioner is engaged in research that was "vitally important to the 
company," described the Petitioner's work as a "key company initiative," and highlighted how the 
results of his work performed better than "similar models from our competitors" and "enhances the 
quality of service" that the company provides. But the vice president made no reference to the 
application, dissemination, or use of the Petitioner's work and research on a broader scale within a 
particular field, beyond just its own clients. 
The vice president also described the Petitioner's current duties as involving the development of 
models that mimic human judgements, evaluating those models in terms of performance and alignment 
with language theory, flagging responses for cheating or gaming behavior, analyzing test scoring data, 
and advising the company's clients on integrating automated scoring into their products and services. 
The vice president further described two research products the Petitioner was involved with, including 
developing advanced natural language processing algorithms to detect anomaly behaviors in student 
responses, and working on machine scoring models for a widely administered language test and 
claimed that the models eliminated inaccuracies in test ratings from human raters thereby providing 
increased efficiency, consistency, and accuracy of test scores. Ultimately, the vice president 
concluded that the Petitioner was a "major asset to [the company]." But the vice president's statements 
and other evidence in the record did not sufficiently describe how the Petitioner's research projects 
impacted the field nationally, or even globally, other than providing better models performing "with a 
higher degree of accuracy [than] similar model from [their] competitors." And the evidence does not 
persuasively demonstrate that the vice president's described "innovation" stemming from the 
Petitioner's activities "enchanc[ ing] the quality of services that we [ the company] provide[ s ]" impacts 
the field nationally, or even globally, or exerts broader implications in a nationally important manner. 
Finally, while the vice president claims the Petitioner's models would be used to score millions of 
essays every year, the Petitioner does not provide evidence to corroborate this claim nor a comparative 
3 
measure to establish such an amount constitutes a broader implication in the field of language testing 
at a level commensurate with national importance. See Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 81 (Comm'r 
1989) (noting that when statements are submitted to substantiate a claim, we determine their 
evidentiary weight based on the extent of the affiants' personal knowledge of the events they attest to, 
and the plausibility, credibility, and consistency of their statements with each other and other evidence 
in the record). 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's remaining documentary evidence, including his curriculum vitae, 
academic records, publications and related citation records and evidence that he has conducted peer 
review activities, which primarily describe the Petitioner's experience in the field of language testing. 
We also acknowledge the letters of recommendation provided by the Petitioner that generally speak 
to his character and professional experience as well as the value of his previous research in the 
language testing and assessment field, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. The above 
evidence, however, generally relates to whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong, rather than whether his proposed endeavor is 
nationally important. Similarly, we acknowledge the articles related to literacy, English-language 
learners in the United States, and the use of technology in U.S. schools, which describe the overall 
impact language testing may have in the United States. In assessing national importance, however, 
our focus is on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake and its prospective 
impact, rather than their credentials and experience or the importance of the industry or profession in 
which the individual will work. Id. at 889. Finally, other than his general assertion regarding the 
overall economic benefit of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner does not specifically address 
whether his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, nor does he 
sufficiently quantify other substantial positive economic effects specifically stemming from his 
proposed endeavor that may implicate national importance. Accordingly, we find the Petitioner has 
not established that his proposed endeavor is nationally important. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which relates to whether a petitioner is well positioned 
to advance a proposed endeavor, shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner's 
qualifications. To determine whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to: their 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. Id. at 890. 
To the extent the Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor is to continue his work as a machine 
learning engineer and to continue his research on implementing artificial intelligence (AI) in language 
ability testing and publish the results of his work at his company in peer-reviewed publications and 
conference presentations, we find the Petitioner has not established he is well positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor. We acknowledge the Petitioner's education, including his master's degree in 
English language teaching and doctoral candidacy in applied linguistics and technology. However, 
while his advanced degree is an especially positive factor, it is not a sufficient basis to determine that 
he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), 
4 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. Rather, we look to a variety of factors and education is merely 
one among many that may contribute to such a determination. 
Additionally, while the record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted and published research, and 
participated in peer review activity, he has not shown that this past work renders him well positioned to 
advance his endeavor. While we recognize that research must add information to the pool of 
knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for publication, presentation, funding, or academic 
credit, not every individual who has performed original research will be found to be well positioned 
to advance their proposed endeavor. Rather, we examine the factors set forth in Dhanasar to determine 
whether, for instance, the individual's progress towards achieving the goals of the proposed research, 
record of success in similar efforts, or generation of interest among relevant parties supports such a 
finding. Id. at 890. Here, we acknowledge the recommendation letters and the letter from the vice 
president of the Petitioner's company speaking to the Petitioner's experience, including two research 
projects the Petitioner is currently working on at the company, but the record does not show that he is 
primarily responsible for obtaining funding for the research projects; how the research has been 
implemented, utilized, or applauded in the language testing industry; how it has affected the language 
testing industry; has served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in his field; or 
otherwise represents a record of success or progress rendering him well positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor. See 6 USCJS Policy Manual F.5(D)( 1 ), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. The 
Petitioner also does not provide examples of his published articles or conference presentations that 
specifically relate to his proposed endeavor of continuing to research the implementation of AI in 
language ability testing at his company. Id. He also has not shown that his published work has been 
cited by relevant parties in his field and at a level of interest sufficient to satisfy the second Dhanasar 
prong. Id. The Petitioner moreover has not documented the stature of the journals or publications in 
which he published or offered other evidence demonstrating that his peer review activity represents a 
record of success in his field or that it is otherwise an indication that he is well positioned to advance his 
research endeavor. 
When considering the Petitioner's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; plan for future activities; progress towards achieving his proposed endeavor; and 
interest from relevant entities or individuals, the record is insufficient to establish he is well positioned 
to advance his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner therefore has not established that he satisfies the 
second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first or second prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 
requiring that he demonstrate his proposed endeavor is nationally important and that he is well 
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. He therefore has not established he is eligible for or 
otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
As noted above, the Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not 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, as are required under prong three of the Dhanasar analytical framework. While the 
Petitioner also contests this conclusion on appeal, since our determination that he did not establish that 
his proposed endeavor is nationally important and that he is well positioned to advance his proposed 
5 
endeavor is dispositive of his appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments 
on that issue. 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. 
6